Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
So far that is 6 votes to move to gitlab, either on sponsored hosting or our current infrastructure, while there are just 2 votes to remain with Phab either on our own infrastructure or hosted. Seems like there is a large majority wanting Gitlab instead of Phab. Let's continue voting for another week or so, as many devs have not responded. If Gitlab still has such a large lead in one manner or another after said time, we can then assume the overwhelming preference of our community is to move to Gitlab from Phab and I will make a discussion topic and then perhaps a future vote for discussing how we want to handle it infrastructure wise. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 12:39 AM wrote: > Morning Guys, > > To answer your questions. > > In regards to a server to migrate the infrastructure to I am ready to > sponsor such an endeavour. I am also ready to rebuild the existing > server. > > The question here becomes is the community ready for this to happen? I > think this is what the vote is for. I am not trying to push beber to the > side I know he is busy and I am willing to step up and get things goign > in terms of being rebuilt. > > Regards, > Jonathan. > > On 2018-09-26 14:48, Marcel Hollerbach wrote: > > There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes > > are done and what the overall plan looks like. > > > > - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. > > - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or > > so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed > > in the "Gitlab" thread). > > > > Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to > > vote for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community > > wants to have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. > > > > On 9/26/18 4:22 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > >> There is no point in developing a plan if we dont know what the plan > >> is or > >> what the desire is of the community. > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Marcel Hollerbach > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. > >>> There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, > >>> there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on > >>> where > >>> the funding would come from. > >>> > >>> How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? > >>> I > >>> don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of > >>> a > >>> switch to gitlab. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> bu5hm4n > >>> > >>> On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > Hello developers, > > Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to > >>> Gitlab > and infrastructure possibilities here: > >>> https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 > > Thanks, > Stephen > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > >>> > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >>> > >> > >> ___ > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >> > > > > > > ___ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
Morning Guys, To answer your questions. In regards to a server to migrate the infrastructure to I am ready to sponsor such an endeavour. I am also ready to rebuild the existing server. The question here becomes is the community ready for this to happen? I think this is what the vote is for. I am not trying to push beber to the side I know he is busy and I am willing to step up and get things goign in terms of being rebuilt. Regards, Jonathan. On 2018-09-26 14:48, Marcel Hollerbach wrote: There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes are done and what the overall plan looks like. - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed in the "Gitlab" thread). Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to vote for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community wants to have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. On 9/26/18 4:22 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: There is no point in developing a plan if we dont know what the plan is or what the desire is of the community. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on where the funding would come from. How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? I don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of a switch to gitlab. Greetings, bu5hm4n On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: Hello developers, Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to Gitlab and infrastructure possibilities here: https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 Thanks, Stephen ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
Hi all, Regardless of gitlab vs phab while Bertrand has done a great job for a long time I think that rebuilding our infra on a more mainstream distro makes a lot of sense, because it will be much easier to document and for more people to understand. Whether it ends up being Centos, openSUSE Leap or Debian doesn't really matter to me but I think those three are the ones that make the most sense atleast for the bare metal machine. If we decide that we would like to migrate to gitlab, then as Jonathan has said setting up a temporary machine that will look and feel like whatever we eventually want for our infra migrating to gitlab on that machine, then giving us the time to get our core infra back into shape and migrating back when its ready makes alot of sense. On 27/09/2018 03:29, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > I will gladly sponsor a server to host on until we get e5 reinstalled and > going again. > > I think here before a new server is mentioned, we need to see about decide > about distribution as that will open up a whole new can of worms > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 26 Sep 2018, at 17:56, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >>> On 9/26/18 5:30 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: >>> A. We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. >>> "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think >>> sponsored means. >> >> The server you mentioned here is the cloud hosting Mike offered? I read >> nothing besides that. No details on who is sponsoring, how long, on a >> monthly basis (could be canceled any time) or one big chunk to be >> managed by the EFL foundation, etc. >> >> Relying on sponsorship for critical infrastructure is difficult for an >> open source project. Not impossible, but difficult. You basically base >> your trust on business decisions not changing in a company. >> >> Without a clear pledge on the sponsorship level in terms of length and >> amount this option sounds really problematic to me. >> >>> >>> B. If you would have spent the last month or so since that Gitlab thread >>> started actually testing or using the prototype set up, you would see that >>> gitlab provides a web interface for git, so no need for cgit. Obviously >>> phab provides a wiki and gitlab provides a wiki so the move from phab to >>> gitlab would move phab's wiki to gitlab's wiki. >> >> I spent time on the thread, looked at the prototype and raised >> questions. Not all have been answered nor have they all been fully >> dissected. Wiki is per project in Gitlab and not overall like Phab, we >> use cgit while phab also offers a git web interface, etc. >> >> Blaming Marcel for not spending time on the thread is pretty harsh if >> many of these things have not been answered and are still in "to be >> found out" state. >> >> Again these are trivial >>> things that could have/should have been discussed for the many weeks that >>> has thread has been there. CI was also mentioned. It's a huge problem >>> with e5 and Stefan explained this. Gitlab has some really good CI tools, >>> but obviously that is one of the biggest considerations in moving as Stefan >>> clearly laid out. CI with E5 is crap. >> >> How would Gitlab help with the CI situation? I see no good integration >> with things like Travis for it (if I missed it I am happy to get pointed >> to it). It basically means we would move our CI over to Gitlab and all >> builds run on our infra (cloud/or hardware). That could easily bring >> back the overloading problems we had on e5. I am very hesitant in buying >> into using Gitlab for CI without enough knowledge about it. >> >> regards >> Stefan Schmidt >> >> >> ___ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- Simon Lees (Simotek)http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
I will gladly sponsor a server to host on until we get e5 reinstalled and going again. I think here before a new server is mentioned, we need to see about decide about distribution as that will open up a whole new can of worms Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Sep 2018, at 17:56, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > > Hello. > >> On 9/26/18 5:30 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: >> A. We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. >> "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think >> sponsored means. > > The server you mentioned here is the cloud hosting Mike offered? I read > nothing besides that. No details on who is sponsoring, how long, on a > monthly basis (could be canceled any time) or one big chunk to be > managed by the EFL foundation, etc. > > Relying on sponsorship for critical infrastructure is difficult for an > open source project. Not impossible, but difficult. You basically base > your trust on business decisions not changing in a company. > > Without a clear pledge on the sponsorship level in terms of length and > amount this option sounds really problematic to me. > >> >> B. If you would have spent the last month or so since that Gitlab thread >> started actually testing or using the prototype set up, you would see that >> gitlab provides a web interface for git, so no need for cgit. Obviously >> phab provides a wiki and gitlab provides a wiki so the move from phab to >> gitlab would move phab's wiki to gitlab's wiki. > > I spent time on the thread, looked at the prototype and raised > questions. Not all have been answered nor have they all been fully > dissected. Wiki is per project in Gitlab and not overall like Phab, we > use cgit while phab also offers a git web interface, etc. > > Blaming Marcel for not spending time on the thread is pretty harsh if > many of these things have not been answered and are still in "to be > found out" state. > > Again these are trivial >> things that could have/should have been discussed for the many weeks that >> has thread has been there. CI was also mentioned. It's a huge problem >> with e5 and Stefan explained this. Gitlab has some really good CI tools, >> but obviously that is one of the biggest considerations in moving as Stefan >> clearly laid out. CI with E5 is crap. > > How would Gitlab help with the CI situation? I see no good integration > with things like Travis for it (if I missed it I am happy to get pointed > to it). It basically means we would move our CI over to Gitlab and all > builds run on our infra (cloud/or hardware). That could easily bring > back the overloading problems we had on e5. I am very hesitant in buying > into using Gitlab for CI without enough knowledge about it. > > regards > Stefan Schmidt > > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
My suggestion would be to move to a temporary server and use the full power of the physical server and chroots and or docker containers. I think using the bare metal setup right on something like centos would provide us with better stability. If more bleeding edge stuffnis needed go for fedora. Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Sep 2018, at 17:30, Stephen Houston wrote: > > A. We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. > "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think > sponsored means. > > B. If you would have spent the last month or so since that Gitlab thread > started actually testing or using the prototype set up, you would see that > gitlab provides a web interface for git, so no need for cgit. Obviously > phab provides a wiki and gitlab provides a wiki so the move from phab to > gitlab would move phab's wiki to gitlab's wiki. Again these are trivial > things that could have/should have been discussed for the many weeks that > has thread has been there. CI was also mentioned. It's a huge problem > with e5 and Stefan explained this. Gitlab has some really good CI tools, > but obviously that is one of the biggest considerations in moving as Stefan > clearly laid out. CI with E5 is crap. > > I will add a temporary move option to the vote. > > I didn't jump the gun here. The Gitlab thread has been around for a long > time now with over 50 responses and is at the point where some kind of > decisions have to be made as it is going to go stale. There is nothing > more frustrating than people who sit around and have AMPLE AMPLE time to > respond and put opinions out there and concerns and discuss things more, > and choose not to until the time comes to take the next step and they then > want to speak their mind. Communication really is key. > > Finally - This vote isn't going to set anything in stone or set anything in > motion. After weeks and weeks of responses to the thread, the vote is > simply there to guage what everybody's end goal/desire is so that we can > have more focused discussions about A. Is it possible? B. How do we > accomplish it? C. Pros/Cons D. Community buy-in > > Relax a little - Vote on the slowvote as to what your ideal situation would > be and then when the vote is over we will have a good feel of what the > community's ideal situation is and we will see if its possible to get close > to that/accomplish that. > > >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:49 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: >> >> There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes are >> done and what the overall plan looks like. >> >> - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. >> - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or >> so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed in >> the "Gitlab" thread). >> >> Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to vote >> for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community wants to >> have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. >> >>> On 9/26/18 4:22 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: >>> There is no point in developing a plan if we dont know what the plan is >> or >>> what the desire is of the community. >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on where the funding would come from. How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? I don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of a switch to gitlab. Greetings, bu5hm4n > On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > Hello developers, > > Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to Gitlab > and infrastructure possibilities here: https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 > > Thanks, > Stephen > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >>> >>> ___ >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >>> >> >> >> ___ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> > >
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
1. Yes I'm referring to the sponsored hosting Mike referenced. As to whether or not that is ideal - that is one of the reasons I wanted to see people's opinions on the slowvote. 2. I'm well aware you spent time on the thread and played with the prototype. I'm also aware that not all questions are answered :) What I blamed Marcel for was not expressing his concerns more in the thread - but perhaps this was too harsh. The thread got pretty much hijacked with arguments about our current infra. So here is what we know. Mike is willing teach and help with migration - Johnathan Aquilna is willing to put forth a large effort with it and is a sysadmin. I am willing to help and do it. There are others as well. Yes there are no guarantees and it will take work. What I'm interested in with the vote, is whether or not the community even wants to go this direction and what kind of infrastructure they want for it. 3. Gitlab CI would not be intended to be integrated with Travis, but replace it. This doesn't have to be on our own infra - but it can be either way. There are many options here. But again these are decisions that would have to be made. Right now I'm trying to gauge from the community whether or not it is worth putting in the time to develop plans and debate a focused end goal and how to get there. Gitlab CI vs Travis CI https://about.gitlab.com/comparison/gitlab-vs-travis-ci.html On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:57 AM Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 9/26/18 5:30 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > > A. We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. > > "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think > > sponsored means. > > The server you mentioned here is the cloud hosting Mike offered? I read > nothing besides that. No details on who is sponsoring, how long, on a > monthly basis (could be canceled any time) or one big chunk to be > managed by the EFL foundation, etc. > > Relying on sponsorship for critical infrastructure is difficult for an > open source project. Not impossible, but difficult. You basically base > your trust on business decisions not changing in a company. > > Without a clear pledge on the sponsorship level in terms of length and > amount this option sounds really problematic to me. > > > > > B. If you would have spent the last month or so since that Gitlab thread > > started actually testing or using the prototype set up, you would see > that > > gitlab provides a web interface for git, so no need for cgit. Obviously > > phab provides a wiki and gitlab provides a wiki so the move from phab to > > gitlab would move phab's wiki to gitlab's wiki. > > I spent time on the thread, looked at the prototype and raised > questions. Not all have been answered nor have they all been fully > dissected. Wiki is per project in Gitlab and not overall like Phab, we > use cgit while phab also offers a git web interface, etc. > > Blaming Marcel for not spending time on the thread is pretty harsh if > many of these things have not been answered and are still in "to be > found out" state. > > Again these are trivial > > things that could have/should have been discussed for the many weeks that > > has thread has been there. CI was also mentioned. It's a huge problem > > with e5 and Stefan explained this. Gitlab has some really good CI tools, > > but obviously that is one of the biggest considerations in moving as > Stefan > > clearly laid out. CI with E5 is crap. > > How would Gitlab help with the CI situation? I see no good integration > with things like Travis for it (if I missed it I am happy to get pointed > to it). It basically means we would move our CI over to Gitlab and all > builds run on our infra (cloud/or hardware). That could easily bring > back the overloading problems we had on e5. I am very hesitant in buying > into using Gitlab for CI without enough knowledge about it. > > regards > Stefan Schmidt > > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
Hello. On 9/26/18 5:30 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > A. We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. > "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think > sponsored means. The server you mentioned here is the cloud hosting Mike offered? I read nothing besides that. No details on who is sponsoring, how long, on a monthly basis (could be canceled any time) or one big chunk to be managed by the EFL foundation, etc. Relying on sponsorship for critical infrastructure is difficult for an open source project. Not impossible, but difficult. You basically base your trust on business decisions not changing in a company. Without a clear pledge on the sponsorship level in terms of length and amount this option sounds really problematic to me. > > B. If you would have spent the last month or so since that Gitlab thread > started actually testing or using the prototype set up, you would see that > gitlab provides a web interface for git, so no need for cgit. Obviously > phab provides a wiki and gitlab provides a wiki so the move from phab to > gitlab would move phab's wiki to gitlab's wiki. I spent time on the thread, looked at the prototype and raised questions. Not all have been answered nor have they all been fully dissected. Wiki is per project in Gitlab and not overall like Phab, we use cgit while phab also offers a git web interface, etc. Blaming Marcel for not spending time on the thread is pretty harsh if many of these things have not been answered and are still in "to be found out" state. Again these are trivial > things that could have/should have been discussed for the many weeks that > has thread has been there. CI was also mentioned. It's a huge problem > with e5 and Stefan explained this. Gitlab has some really good CI tools, > but obviously that is one of the biggest considerations in moving as Stefan > clearly laid out. CI with E5 is crap. How would Gitlab help with the CI situation? I see no good integration with things like Travis for it (if I missed it I am happy to get pointed to it). It basically means we would move our CI over to Gitlab and all builds run on our infra (cloud/or hardware). That could easily bring back the overloading problems we had on e5. I am very hesitant in buying into using Gitlab for CI without enough knowledge about it. regards Stefan Schmidt ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
On 9/26/18 5:27 PM, Stefan Schmidt wrote: Hello. On 9/26/18 4:48 PM, Marcel Hollerbach wrote: There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes are done and what the overall plan looks like. - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. A fair question. - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed in the "Gitlab" thread). Stephen clarified this now in the vote. The vote would be on the end goal. Gitlab on own infra in this case. Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to vote for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community wants to have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. I think using the term sponsorship is a bit misleading. The current server and network access is also sponsored. What I understand from the thread is that some wanted a cloud service (which would be sponsored as it costs monthly). From okra: We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think sponsored means. It seems we both have been mistaken :) Nothing about that is clear yet. No price tag on monthly costs, who would sponsor, for how long, etc. Everyone wanting this should think how it could happen. None the less I think its fair to start having a vote on community desires. That should show a bit better what the people here want. If there will be a sustainable plan to get to that goal has to be seen. One have to start somewhere though and this thread has gone in many direction without a clear directive showing up. regards Stefan Schmidt ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
A. We were assured the server could be provided free of charge. I.E. "Sponsored" not bought or paid for as you and raster seem to think sponsored means. B. If you would have spent the last month or so since that Gitlab thread started actually testing or using the prototype set up, you would see that gitlab provides a web interface for git, so no need for cgit. Obviously phab provides a wiki and gitlab provides a wiki so the move from phab to gitlab would move phab's wiki to gitlab's wiki. Again these are trivial things that could have/should have been discussed for the many weeks that has thread has been there. CI was also mentioned. It's a huge problem with e5 and Stefan explained this. Gitlab has some really good CI tools, but obviously that is one of the biggest considerations in moving as Stefan clearly laid out. CI with E5 is crap. I will add a temporary move option to the vote. I didn't jump the gun here. The Gitlab thread has been around for a long time now with over 50 responses and is at the point where some kind of decisions have to be made as it is going to go stale. There is nothing more frustrating than people who sit around and have AMPLE AMPLE time to respond and put opinions out there and concerns and discuss things more, and choose not to until the time comes to take the next step and they then want to speak their mind. Communication really is key. Finally - This vote isn't going to set anything in stone or set anything in motion. After weeks and weeks of responses to the thread, the vote is simply there to guage what everybody's end goal/desire is so that we can have more focused discussions about A. Is it possible? B. How do we accomplish it? C. Pros/Cons D. Community buy-in Relax a little - Vote on the slowvote as to what your ideal situation would be and then when the vote is over we will have a good feel of what the community's ideal situation is and we will see if its possible to get close to that/accomplish that. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:49 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: > There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes are > done and what the overall plan looks like. > > - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. > - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or > so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed in > the "Gitlab" thread). > > Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to vote > for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community wants to > have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. > > On 9/26/18 4:22 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > > There is no point in developing a plan if we dont know what the plan is > or > > what the desire is of the community. > > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: > > > >> I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. > >> There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, > >> there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on where > >> the funding would come from. > >> > >> How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? I > >> don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of a > >> switch to gitlab. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> bu5hm4n > >> > >> On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > >>> Hello developers, > >>> > >>> Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to > >> Gitlab > >>> and infrastructure possibilities here: > >> https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Stephen > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >>> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >> > > > > ___ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
Hello. On 9/26/18 4:48 PM, Marcel Hollerbach wrote: > There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes are > done and what the overall plan looks like. > > - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. A fair question. > - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or > so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed in > the "Gitlab" thread). Stephen clarified this now in the vote. The vote would be on the end goal. Gitlab on own infra in this case. > Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to vote > for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community wants to > have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. I think using the term sponsorship is a bit misleading. The current server and network access is also sponsored. What I understand from the thread is that some wanted a cloud service (which would be sponsored as it costs monthly). Nothing about that is clear yet. No price tag on monthly costs, who would sponsor, for how long, etc. Everyone wanting this should think how it could happen. None the less I think its fair to start having a vote on community desires. That should show a bit better what the people here want. If there will be a sustainable plan to get to that goal has to be seen. One have to start somewhere though and this thread has gone in many direction without a clear directive showing up. regards Stefan Schmidt ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
There is a difference between a precise plan on what kind of changes are done and what the overall plan looks like. - What is happening to the CI, cgit, wiki etc. - Is the sponsoring a permanent choice, or just something for a year or so, and the overall plan is to migrate back, (this was also proposed in the "Gitlab" thread). Those questions are rather fundamental (at least to me) in order to vote for anything. Also, how useful is it to know that the community wants to have a sponsored service if there is no funding at all. On 9/26/18 4:22 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: There is no point in developing a plan if we dont know what the plan is or what the desire is of the community. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on where the funding would come from. How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? I don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of a switch to gitlab. Greetings, bu5hm4n On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: Hello developers, Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to Gitlab and infrastructure possibilities here: https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 Thanks, Stephen ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
There is no point in developing a plan if we dont know what the plan is or what the desire is of the community. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Marcel Hollerbach wrote: > I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. > There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, > there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on where > the funding would come from. > > How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? I > don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of a > switch to gitlab. > > Greetings, > bu5hm4n > > On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: > > Hello developers, > > > > Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to > Gitlab > > and infrastructure possibilities here: > https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 > > > > Thanks, > > Stephen > > > > ___ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
I don't really see where this vote does make any sense. There is currently no one stepping up, saying he does the migration, there is no plan how the move should be done, there is no plan on where the funding would come from. How should i decide if a move would make sense or not in this stage? I don't even can see what kind of features would be included in case of a switch to gitlab. Greetings, bu5hm4n On 9/26/18 3:52 PM, Stephen Houston wrote: Hello developers, Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to Gitlab and infrastructure possibilities here: https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 Thanks, Stephen ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
[E-devel] Gitlab/Infrastructure Slowvote
Hello developers, Please take the time to consider options and vote on a migration to Gitlab and infrastructure possibilities here: https://phab.enlightenment.org/V39 Thanks, Stephen ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
