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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
