On 17-02-07 12:59:22, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > Pjotr Prins writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 09:44:48PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > >> Just a reply on the notabug question (I don't have much time otherwise): > >> Notabug will eventually move to an instance of pagure.io, you can read > >> about this in their own issues where I asked about some question back > >> then (no link, sorry .. my name was 'ng0' back on there). Developing > >> with pagure might be easier (fedora and surrounding communities) > >> compared to the situation they describe in the issue. > >> I started packaging pagure for this reason, which is about ~85% done > >> (services + pagure itself left to wrap it up ... pagure itself is more > >> or less done, just the service are needed. I'm more than happy to pass > >> this on (could rebase the pagure patch), as I know I have taken on some > >> tasks which would be better handled by different people :) > >> That is in case you want to use a GuixSD as a host, otherwise you should > >> not have many problems. > > > > That would be a great result :). Also pagure looks very interesting - > > simpler than gitlab. I like simple. > > It does look good: > > Open data: Sources, doc, ticket and pull-requests meta-data are > available in the web interface but also in git repos which can thus be > cloned and changed locally. > > That's really appealing. >
The only thing we found (not answered, but I didn't check so far with pagure development team) is that issues and pull requests are read-only git repositories. Maybe our short trip into pagure was too short to answer this, but it looked like read-only, no push. One reason why I want an local instance to play with so I can check wether my feature-issues are really issues or just pagure.io instance configuration settings. Also no trace of the "pull requests" across different hosted instance of it, but that can be solved aswell later. I agree with Pjotr, doesn't matter for now, might matter later. -- ng0 -- https://www.inventati.org/patternsinthechaos/
