Re: Is Storyboard really the future?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Goirand zigo@debian.org To: openstack-discuss openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:22:08 +0200 Subject: Re: Is Storyboard really the future? On 9/14/20 8:59 AM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 8:46 PM Thomas Goirand thomas@goirand.fr
wrote:
On 9/10/20 6:45 PM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
I feel you. I could not so far convince anyone to support me to work
on it, mostly because
Jira/GitHub/GitLab/Launchpad exists.
Not to mention many small internal projects are happy with just
Trello. :-)
Did you just try to list all the non-free services you could in this
thread? Seriously, don't you care a little bit? You probably don't
realize it, but that's shocking, at least for me, and hopefully I'm not
the only one.
I feel offended by the accusations.
I *do* care about open source.
Jeremy has already answered regarding GitLab and Launchpad.
Let's not forget GitHub actually *is* the largest, diverse open source
community,
even though the service itself is not. It hurts me as well so please
don't just
randomly attack people mentioning non-free software.
It can support open source software as well.
You're the one mentioning Jira, GitHub, Trello as possible solution to
solve the fact that you don't like Storyboard. This is IMO very far from
the spirit of free software. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack:
there's nothing personal here, just a strong opposition to using this
kind of services.
The fact that many projects are using these non-free services to produce
free software is actually a problem, not a solution. Same for Github
being (probably) the largest repository of free software: that's a huge
problem, as huge as the number of projects hosted. Lucky, many just
think of it as just free hosting and nothing more.
Gitlab being open-core, as Jeremy pointed out, is also a problem (anyone
that knows about the beginning of OpenStack and Eucalyptus knows why
open core is problematic).
I did not propose that in any part. Launchpad is FLOSS and that is my
proposal.
The general idea behind my mail was to emphasise that Storyboard has
great aspirations
and assumptions but is far from delivering its full potential so
should not be recommended without
giving background and other possible solutions.
Launchpad is hardly installable, and is tightly connected to
Canonical/Ubuntu. It is a very good thing that the OpenStack community
has made efforts to get out of it. It is IMO counter-productive to push
projects to either go back to launchpad, or not migrate to Storyboard.
The only viable solution is to contribute and make Storyboard better, or
switching to another existing free software. There are many out there
that could have done the job.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
openstack-discuss mailing list
openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss
Hi everyone,
So, thomas, your message was rude and can hurt because Yocto didn’t suggested to use those tools, he was answering you that he feel the pain as everyone is suggesting those tool when you talk with people on IRC etc.
Even if I do understand your point and know the importance of being autonomous and do not rely on non-FLOSS software, the thruth being all those discussions is the pain in the ass that it is to contribute to Openstack projects compared with other Open source software based on Github or Github like workflow.
The opensource community and especially the Openstack one need to understand that people really get a limited amount of time and so if you want to attract more people your contribution process have to be streamlined and on par with what most of us developers do experience on everyday. The foundation made a first step toward that by migrating every project on gitea, and honestly, I’m still amazed that while migrating those projects it wasn’t decided to use the issues/projects feature of gitea. There even is a cicd zuul plugin for gitea.
As a community we propose things, but if the community don’t use them, it’s because it’s not what they’re waiting for. We also need to step back from time to time and admit that one software need to sunset and be migrated elsewhere.
We want a fully floss project to host it? Fine it’s perfectly valid argument, then just reuse what’s already there with gitea and redirect development effort of the abandonned software to the new platform in order to support the missing part if ever required!
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss
On 9/14/20 10:17 AM, Gaël THEROND wrote:
Hi everyone,
So, thomas, your message was rude and can hurt because Yocto didn’t suggested to use those tools, he was answering you that he feel the pain as everyone is suggesting those tool when you talk with people on IRC etc.
Sorry if it was perceived as rude. Though IMO Yocto *was* suggesting these tools, at least that's my perception in his message.
Even if I do understand your point and know the importance of being autonomous and do not rely on non-FLOSS software, the thruth being all those discussions is the pain in the ass that it is to contribute to Openstack projects compared with other Open source software based on Github or Github like workflow.
If it's harder to contribute to OpenStack, IMO, it's not because of the tooling (ie: gerrit + git-review), but because the bar for patch quality is set much higher. Otherwise, I did find the git-review workflow much nicer than the one of Gitlab / Github.
The opensource community and especially the Openstack one need to understand that people really get a limited amount of time and so if you want to attract more people your contribution process have to be streamlined and on par with what most of us developers do experience on everyday.
I very much agree that getting a patch accepted isn't easy. I gave up about some patches because core reviewer were asking for too much work that I cannot unfortunately provide (I understand why they do that though). Though this never was because of the infrastructure, which I find much nicer than any other.
We want a fully floss project to host it? Fine it’s perfectly valid argument, then just reuse what’s already there with gitea and redirect development effort of the abandonned software to the new platform in order to support the missing part if ever required!
This is IMO a much nicer idea than suggesting to go back to Launchpad, or stop migrating to Storyboard.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 13:31 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 9/14/20 10:17 AM, Gaël THEROND wrote:
Hi everyone,
So, thomas, your message was rude and can hurt because Yocto didn’t suggested to use those tools, he was answering you that he feel the pain as everyone is suggesting those tool when you talk with people on IRC etc.
Sorry if it was perceived as rude. Though IMO Yocto *was* suggesting these tools, at least that's my perception in his message.
Even if I do understand your point and know the importance of being autonomous and do not rely on non-FLOSS software, the thruth being all those discussions is the pain in the ass that it is to contribute to Openstack projects compared with other Open source software based on Github or Github like workflow.
If it's harder to contribute to OpenStack, IMO, it's not because of the tooling (ie: gerrit + git-review), but because the bar for patch quality is set much higher. Otherwise, I did find the git-review workflow much nicer than the one of Gitlab / Github.
+1 both to the code quality bar esspically in more mature project and the ux of git review. i have shown it to friend that use gerrit but dont work on openstack and they were really happy with it.
The opensource community and especially the Openstack one need to understand that people really get a limited amount of time and so if you want to attract more people your contribution process have to be streamlined and on par with what most of us developers do experience on everyday.
I very much agree that getting a patch accepted isn't easy. I gave up about some patches because core reviewer were asking for too much work that I cannot unfortunately provide (I understand why they do that though). Though this never was because of the infrastructure, which I find much nicer than any other.
ya the new contributor bar for some porject is kindo like learning emacs it can be pretty much vertical at times but i do know that we try to help new and old contributors leap over that hurdel too. i think we do a better job of that then we used too but it can be intimidating. for the first year year and a hafl of working on openstack i did not understand the importance of irc and keeping an eye on the mailing list even if i did not post.
as a result i tried to land thing purely via gerrit and unsruprissingly that did not go well until i started talking to people on irc/email so i could socialise my proposals and get feedback more directly.
We want a fully floss project to host it? Fine it’s perfectly valid argument, then just reuse what’s already there with gitea and redirect development effort of the abandonned software to the new platform in order to support the missing part if ever required!
This is IMO a much nicer idea than suggesting to go back to Launchpad, or stop migrating to Storyboard.
ya i do think looking at gitia has a lot of merit. its even somthing i would be happy to bring up with the nova team who previous had decided to never move from lanuchpad. i was also apposed to moveing nova or os-vif from lanuchpad to storyborad after trying to use it for a bit but this would be something i would be tempted to at least try.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 12:43 +0100, Sean Mooney wrote:
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 13:31 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 9/14/20 10:17 AM, Gaël THEROND wrote:
Hi everyone,
So, thomas, your message was rude and can hurt because Yocto didn’t suggested to use those tools, he was answering you that he feel the pain as everyone is suggesting those tool when you talk with people on IRC etc.
Sorry if it was perceived as rude. Though IMO Yocto *was* suggesting these tools, at least that's my perception in his message.
Even if I do understand your point and know the importance of being autonomous and do not rely on non-FLOSS software, the thruth being all those discussions is the pain in the ass that it is to contribute to Openstack projects compared with other Open source software based on Github or Github like workflow.
If it's harder to contribute to OpenStack, IMO, it's not because of the tooling (ie: gerrit + git-review), but because the bar for patch quality is set much higher. Otherwise, I did find the git-review workflow much nicer than the one of Gitlab / Github.
+1 both to the code quality bar esspically in more mature project and the ux of git review. i have shown it to friend that use gerrit but dont work on openstack and they were really happy with it.
The opensource community and especially the Openstack one need to understand that people really get a limited amount of time and so if you want to attract more people your contribution process have to be streamlined and on par with what most of us developers do experience on everyday.
I very much agree that getting a patch accepted isn't easy. I gave up about some patches because core reviewer were asking for too much work that I cannot unfortunately provide (I understand why they do that though). Though this never was because of the infrastructure, which I find much nicer than any other.
ya the new contributor bar for some porject is kindo like learning emacs it can be pretty much vertical at times but i do know that we try to help new and old contributors leap over that hurdel too. i think we do a better job of that then we used too but it can be intimidating. for the first year year and a hafl of working on openstack i did not understand the importance of irc and keeping an eye on the mailing list even if i did not post.
as a result i tried to land thing purely via gerrit and unsruprissingly that did not go well until i started talking to people on irc/email so i could socialise my proposals and get feedback more directly.
We want a fully floss project to host it? Fine it’s perfectly valid argument, then just reuse what’s already there with gitea and redirect development effort of the abandonned software to the new platform in order to support the missing part if ever required!
This is IMO a much nicer idea than suggesting to go back to Launchpad, or stop migrating to Storyboard.
ya i do think looking at gitia has a lot of merit. its even somthing i would be happy to bring up with the nova team who previous had decided to never move from lanuchpad. i was also apposed to moveing nova or os-vif from lanuchpad to storyborad after trying to use it for a bit but this would be something i would be tempted to at least try.
hum one gap that could be a blocker for gitea is the lack fo confidential issue support
https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/comparison/#issue-tracker unless https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/3217 is adressed we would not be able to use it for security bugs so that i think would be a blocker.
it looks like its in flight https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/11099 https://github.com/php-tuf/php-tuf/issues/25 https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/37
but that would be a requirement for any issue tracker we use so we can track security bugs privetly.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 10:17 +0200, Gaël THEROND wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Goirand zigo@debian.org To: openstack-discuss openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:22:08 +0200 Subject: Re: Is Storyboard really the future? On 9/14/20 8:59 AM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 8:46 PM Thomas Goirand thomas@goirand.fr
wrote:
On 9/10/20 6:45 PM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
I feel you. I could not so far convince anyone to support me to work on it, mostly because Jira/GitHub/GitLab/Launchpad exists. Not to mention many small internal projects are happy with just
Trello. :-)
Did you just try to list all the non-free services you could in this thread? Seriously, don't you care a little bit? You probably don't realize it, but that's shocking, at least for me, and hopefully I'm not the only one.
I feel offended by the accusations. I *do* care about open source.
Jeremy has already answered regarding GitLab and Launchpad. Let's not forget GitHub actually *is* the largest, diverse open source community, even though the service itself is not. It hurts me as well so please
don't just
randomly attack people mentioning non-free software. It can support open source software as well.
You're the one mentioning Jira, GitHub, Trello as possible solution to
solve the fact that you don't like Storyboard. This is IMO very far from
the spirit of free software. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack:
there's nothing personal here, just a strong opposition to using this
kind of services.
The fact that many projects are using these non-free services to produce
free software is actually a problem, not a solution. Same for Github
being (probably) the largest repository of free software: that's a huge
problem, as huge as the number of projects hosted. Lucky, many just
think of it as just free hosting and nothing more.
Gitlab being open-core, as Jeremy pointed out, is also a problem (anyone
that knows about the beginning of OpenStack and Eucalyptus knows why
open core is problematic).
I did not propose that in any part. Launchpad is FLOSS and that is my
proposal.
The general idea behind my mail was to emphasise that Storyboard has great aspirations and assumptions but is far from delivering its full potential so should not be recommended without giving background and other possible solutions.
Launchpad is hardly installable, and is tightly connected to
Canonical/Ubuntu. It is a very good thing that the OpenStack community
has made efforts to get out of it. It is IMO counter-productive to push
projects to either go back to launchpad, or not migrate to Storyboard.
The only viable solution is to contribute and make Storyboard better, or
switching to another existing free software. There are many out there
that could have done the job.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
openstack-discuss mailing list
openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss
Hi everyone,
So, thomas, your message was rude and can hurt because Yocto didn’t suggested to use those tools, he was answering you that he feel the pain as everyone is suggesting those tool when you talk with people on IRC etc.
Even if I do understand your point and know the importance of being autonomous and do not rely on non-FLOSS software, the thruth being all those discussions is the pain in the ass that it is to contribute to Openstack projects compared with other Open source software based on Github or Github like workflow.
actully i would stongly disaggree i find working with the github workflow to be much less compelling for code review then a gerrit based workflow. i used gitlab for deveploemnt before is started workign on openstack have found gerrit based workflow to be simpler and eaiser to have async conversations with then github. primarlly since comment live with the version on which they are posted. also when you rebase your fork it udates the code visabel in the pull requests meaning that the comments that are there from previous version fo the patch nolonger make sense sicne the code has now changes so looking back on why changes were made becomes much much harder.
The opensource community and especially the Openstack one need to understand that people really get a limited amount of time and so if you want to attract more people your contribution process have to be streamlined and on par with what most of us developers do experience on everyday. The foundation made a first step toward that by migrating every project on gitea, and honestly, I’m still amazed that while migrating those projects it wasn’t decided to use the issues/projects feature of gitea. There even is a cicd zuul plugin for gitea.
i do like githubs issue tracking and if gitea has a similar set of functionality i do think that would be a good alternitive to launchpad that i could certenly work with happily. storyborad did not really meet that need which is why i still prefer lanuchpad however for larger projects like nova gitea still performs quite pooly so it woudl depend on how responsive it actully is in production. the simple lables/tags, milestones and issue + integration with commit message comments is one of the things i love about gitlab that i missed when i first started working with lanuchpad although closes-bug has been supported with a bot to close lanuchpad issue since i started mroe or less so that lessened the pain.
so +1 on github sytle issue tracking but i woudl be -1 on moveing to a pull request flow instead of gerrit.
As a community we propose things, but if the community don’t use them, it’s because it’s not what they’re waiting for. We also need to step back from time to time and admit that one software need to sunset and be migrated elsewhere.
well thats the thihng story board does work for a subset of the community. lanuchpad works for another. gitea might also work and i would be interested to see what that would looklike as i think issue tracking was onething github/gitlab got right.
We want a fully floss project to host it?
both launchpad and story borad are opensocue by the way. the pushback on launchpad primarly comes form the fact that is not hosted by the openstack foundation and as a result you need an external ubuntu one login. that said you use teh same login for gerrit so removeing the use of launchpad will not remove the need for you account unless we also added a new singel signon provider hosted by the foundation. gerrit certenly support other openid backends but its not configured for them on opendev or at least the openstack one is not.
Fine it’s perfectly valid argument, then just reuse what’s already there with gitea and redirect development effort of the abandonned software to the new platform in order to support the missing part if ever required!
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss
Hi Sean, thanks for your answer, that's interesting!
My point wasn't about whether or not software X implements better features than Y but rather about what contributors wait for when participating in projects. They want a simple and straight forward workflow with a minimum of overhead compared to what they already have/know.
*For instance, here are the pain points that I can list from a newcomer perspective (whatever its skillset is, senior/junior):* * Having to install git review. * Having to create another new account. * Having to read an extensive amount of not really clear and seamless documentation (gerrit/zuul workflow). * Having to find the community communication channels (IRC/List). * Having to install an IRC client. * Having to find out which issue manager you need to use (Launchpad/Storyboard/Trello/whatever).
*A more streamlined workflow should be something like:* * Use gitea for issue tracking, whatever your project is, people are used to the github/gitlab issue style nowadays (fork/branch/merge), visually, it's easier to understand. * Use OpenID from an already existing provider (Openstack (gitea?)/Github/Gitlab/Google/whatever), it eases the authentication process. * Get a clear and straightforward documentation (One where I don't need to open ten different tabs). * Get a more modern communication platform (Mattermost is floss, other non-floss alternatives such as Discord/Slack exist) that let you get audio/video streams, rich document sharing, meeting rooms etc.
As usual, it's just my two cents on how we could ease things such as driving new contributors, ease our contributing routine, ease communication etc. Honestly, my very main pain point is about issue management both in terms of workflow and UI/UX.
Le lun. 14 sept. 2020 à 13:35, Sean Mooney smooney@redhat.com a écrit :
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 10:17 +0200, Gaël THEROND wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Goirand zigo@debian.org To: openstack-discuss openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:22:08 +0200 Subject: Re: Is Storyboard really the future? On 9/14/20 8:59 AM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 8:46 PM Thomas Goirand thomas@goirand.fr
wrote:
On 9/10/20 6:45 PM, Radosław Piliszek wrote:
I feel you. I could not so far convince anyone to support me to
work
on it, mostly because Jira/GitHub/GitLab/Launchpad exists. Not to mention many small internal projects are happy with just
Trello. :-)
Did you just try to list all the non-free services you could in
this
thread? Seriously, don't you care a little bit? You probably don't realize it, but that's shocking, at least for me, and hopefully
I'm not
the only one.
I feel offended by the accusations. I *do* care about open source.
Jeremy has already answered regarding GitLab and Launchpad. Let's not forget GitHub actually *is* the largest, diverse open
source
community, even though the service itself is not. It hurts me as well so please
don't just
randomly attack people mentioning non-free software. It can support open source software as well.
You're the one mentioning Jira, GitHub, Trello as possible solution to
solve the fact that you don't like Storyboard. This is IMO very far
from
the spirit of free software. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack:
there's nothing personal here, just a strong opposition to using this
kind of services.
The fact that many projects are using these non-free services to
produce
free software is actually a problem, not a solution. Same for Github
being (probably) the largest repository of free software: that's a huge
problem, as huge as the number of projects hosted. Lucky, many just
think of it as just free hosting and nothing more.
Gitlab being open-core, as Jeremy pointed out, is also a problem
(anyone
that knows about the beginning of OpenStack and Eucalyptus knows why
open core is problematic).
I did not propose that in any part. Launchpad is FLOSS and that is my
proposal.
The general idea behind my mail was to emphasise that Storyboard has great aspirations and assumptions but is far from delivering its full potential so should not be recommended without giving background and other possible solutions.
Launchpad is hardly installable, and is tightly connected to
Canonical/Ubuntu. It is a very good thing that the OpenStack community
has made efforts to get out of it. It is IMO counter-productive to push
projects to either go back to launchpad, or not migrate to Storyboard.
The only viable solution is to contribute and make Storyboard better,
or
switching to another existing free software. There are many out there
that could have done the job.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
openstack-discuss mailing list
openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss
Hi everyone,
So, thomas, your message was rude and can hurt because Yocto didn’t suggested to use those tools, he was answering you that he feel the pain
as
everyone is suggesting those tool when you talk with people on IRC etc.
Even if I do understand your point and know the importance of being autonomous and do not rely on non-FLOSS software, the thruth being all those discussions is the pain in the ass that it is to contribute to Openstack projects compared with other Open source software based on
Github
or Github like workflow.
actully i would stongly disaggree i find working with the github workflow to be much less compelling for code review then a gerrit based workflow. i used gitlab for deveploemnt before is started workign on openstack have found gerrit based workflow to be simpler and eaiser to have async conversations with then github. primarlly since comment live with the version on which they are posted. also when you rebase your fork it udates the code visabel in the pull requests meaning that the comments that are there from previous version fo the patch nolonger make sense sicne the code has now changes so looking back on why changes were made becomes much much harder.
The opensource community and especially the Openstack one need to understand that people really get a limited amount of time and so if you want to attract more people your contribution process have to be streamlined and on par with what most of us developers do experience on everyday. The foundation made a first step toward that by migrating every project on gitea, and honestly, I’m still amazed that while migrating
those
projects it wasn’t decided to use the issues/projects feature of gitea. There even is a cicd zuul plugin for gitea.
i do like githubs issue tracking and if gitea has a similar set of functionality i do think that would be a good alternitive to launchpad that i could certenly work with happily. storyborad did not really meet that need which is why i still prefer lanuchpad however for larger projects like nova gitea still performs quite pooly so it woudl depend on how responsive it actully is in production. the simple lables/tags, milestones and issue
- integration with
commit message comments is one of the things i love about gitlab that i missed when i first started working with lanuchpad although closes-bug has been supported with a bot to close lanuchpad issue since i started mroe or less so that lessened the pain.
so +1 on github sytle issue tracking but i woudl be -1 on moveing to a pull request flow instead of gerrit.
As a community we propose things, but if the community don’t use them,
it’s
because it’s not what they’re waiting for. We also need to step back from time to time and admit that one software need to sunset and be migrated elsewhere.
well thats the thihng story board does work for a subset of the community. lanuchpad works for another. gitea might also work and i would be interested to see what that would looklike as i think issue tracking was onething github/gitlab got right.
We want a fully floss project to host it?
both launchpad and story borad are opensocue by the way. the pushback on launchpad primarly comes form the fact that is not hosted by the openstack foundation and as a result you need an external ubuntu one login. that said you use teh same login for gerrit so removeing the use of launchpad will not remove the need for you account unless we also added a new singel signon provider hosted by the foundation. gerrit certenly support other openid backends but its not configured for them on opendev or at least the openstack one is not.
Fine it’s perfectly valid argument, then just reuse what’s already there with gitea and redirect development effort of the abandonned software to the new platform in
order
to support the missing part if ever required!
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-discuss
On 2020-09-14 12:35:18 +0100 (+0100), Sean Mooney wrote: [...]
for larger projects like nova gitea still performs quite pooly
[...]
Is this still the case today? Browsing https://opendev.org/openstack/nova has been rather snappy for me since the performance fixes went in a while back.
gitea might also work and i would be interested to see what that would looklike as i think issue tracking was onething github/gitlab got right.
[...]
At the moment, Gitea is purely a read-only code browsing and Git server interface in the OpenDev Collaboratory. Any of its more interactive features have been disabled so that we can load-balance requests across multiple (currently eight) Gitea servers to handle the volume of code browsing and Git fetches we see at peak. These multiple Gitea services can't share a common database backend, and until that happens we can't really consider trying any of its features which require accounts/authentication or storing stateful data (issues, wiki, et cetera).
the pushback on launchpad primarly comes form the fact that is not hosted by the openstack foundation and as a result you need an external ubuntu one login. that said you use teh same login for gerrit so removeing the use of launchpad will not remove the need for you account unless we also added a new singel signon provider hosted by the foundation. gerrit certenly support other openid backends but its not configured for them on opendev or at least the openstack one is not.
[...]
The plan is and has always been to put together a central authentication broker to act as an SSO for all of the services which make up the OpenDev Collaboratory, for a more consistent and flexible user experience. It wouldn't be managed by the OSF, it would just be part of the services we're managing in OpenDev:
https://docs.opendev.org/opendev/infra-specs/latest/specs/central-auth.html
If anyone's interested in helping us execute that plan, please let us know. The more, the merrier!
On 2020-09-14 10:17:32 +0200 (+0200), Gaël THEROND wrote: [...]
The foundation made a first step toward that by migrating every project on gitea, and honestly, I’m still amazed that while migrating those projects it wasn’t decided to use the issues/projects feature of gitea.
Credit where credit is due, this was the work of the OpenStack Infrastructure Team (and later OpenDev) sysadmins and contributors, not anything driven by or even recommended by the OSF. If anything, the bulk of the work there was contributed by Red Hat employees.
There even is a cicd zuul plugin for gitea.
[...]
Neat! Where did you find that? I don't think the Zuul contributors are aware it even exists (at least I hadn't heard about it until now).
participants (4)
-
Gaël THEROND
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Sean Mooney
-
Thomas Goirand