On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:25:46 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/09/2013 02:53 AM, Tim Flink wrote: > > If we're OK with non-open tools, Jira [4] is another option. They > > offer free hosted and self-hosted versions of their tools to open > > source projects [5]. Atlassian has been offering this for a long > > time and their tools are used by other open source projects like > > the apache project and jboss. I've not spent much time with Jira > > but have heard more good things than bad things about it. > > > > [4] https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira [5] > > https://www.atlassian.com/software/views/open-source-license-request > > > > So after a long novel-disguised-as-an-email, I have two main > > questions: > > > > Where do we want to host code for Taskbot and future QA > > development projects? - fedorahosted? github? bitbucket? I don't > > have a huge preference on the location as long as we're talking > > about git repos, to be honest. > > > > What do we want to use for issue tracking? - This is the bigger > > issue, is there enough interest in phabricator to justify getting > > it working with fas-openid and doing a larger trial? - Do we want > > to explore using JIRA? > > > > Anyhow, thoughts on all this would be very much appreciated. > > Given the long and painful process attempting to get GitLab deployed > into Fedora infrastructure, I don't believe it makes sense to consider > a *different* self-hosted option that is neither Trac nor GitLab. You > want to spend your time working on Taskbot, not maintaining Taskbot's > VCS and issue tracking infrastructure. +1 million on the not spending any more time maintaining a VCS and/or issue tracking system if we don't have to. It's overhead and headaches that would be great to avoid. I don't think of it so much as "avoid doing any tool work" as "making sure that the efficiency gains we get from a tool are greater than the time we spend maintaining it". Either way, it's the same sentiment of being in the getting-stuff-done business not the farting-around-with-fancy-tools business. I'm aware of the GitLab initiative but I didn't realize that it was anywhere close to being ready or a sure thing. My understanding was that the main problems were that it is a big ball of ruby (mostly packaged at this point), that it doesn't yet support anonymous viewing (but I think that's on their roadmap for the next year or so) and that it's support for pull requests wasn't quite up to github standards yet. I suppose I should ping infra about all of this to make sure I'm not missing something. What I want is: - easy/workable code review - good issue tracking * one issue tracker for the entire project preferred * be able to track things like infra and investigation tasks - almost everything use the same auth (prefer FAS, github/bitbucket would be an option) - not need to have someone always working on maintaining stuff Ideally all of it would be open source but I'm not sure I want to push for anything to be added as a fedorahosted option - that's a lot more work than I really want to be taking on right now. We have enough on our plate as it is. > In terms of your hosted options, it may be worth looking at RhodeCode > Hosted, since that's a lot closer to normal open source than JIRA. > However, that would have the same doesn't-integrate-with-FAS problem > as other hosted alternatives. I tried out RhodeCode a few months ago before they had the enterprise support like they do now. I had so many problems with it that I switched over to gitolite+cgit which has fewer features but supports ssh keys and didn't crash on a daily basis. It may be worth looking at again, though since we're likely to need some VCS management at some point for the task repos. I had been planning to use some variation of the fedorahosted setup (either repos in fedorahosted or a clone - haven't talked to infra about this yet) > One of the nice things about the RhodeCode hosted option though, in > that where GitHub and BitBucket give you repos within a single large > shared system, RhodeCode gives you your own self-contained server. > This means a bit more work to get it set up, but also gives you more > flexibility in terms of issue management. Yeah, one of the classic choices: flexibility or lack-of-required-effort :) You all are using gerrit, right? Have you been happy with it WRT features, maintenance etc? I've been getting the impression that there are a lot of people who aren't thrilled with it but I've not actually tried to use it myself. Thanks so much for your input, I really appreciate it. Tim > Cheers, > Nick. > > - -- > Nick Coghlan > Red Hat Infrastructure Engineering & Development, Brisbane > > Testing Solutions Team Lead > Beaker Development Lead (http://beaker-project.org/) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSVNrKAAoJEHEkJo9fMO/LfwIH/A8Q32oK++JBZRSNUR/4MICw > /A7mjeZHwSYYgG+/2qJt6PzfRxY1UiW8bXus00wEcI56kuqQgP66Tk+INH2+5uVN > N9g1BQVW18bWjR6U0tanceNQO2gp2hfUByPIeaSjVPwI5JlKoRUzmCBp/agZo3lT > V7AJYWMXXDTinD4NXr4kbtA9YiKyvKbzWqPuzS2IPsSiyVY6fXHy8eU71/25z/k+ > EX1k0WA585zCSb+VKlmp1SRcMnFXwt6irDfy9U6XFCJGqiHE/Dg2Rl0bk8GHHxL8 > 3QWQT4H/crp3grri4YxYNMHyJSuGYZd/c+7jMUGJN2q11KNGLvTYTVlU+08WgdM= > =Lt3K > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > qa-devel mailing list > qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel