[ClusterLabs Developers] [RFC] Time to migrate authoritative source forge elsewhere?

[Ken Gaillot]

On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:01 -0400, Digimer wrote:
> On 2018-06-07 02:48 AM, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> > Jan Pokorný <jpokorny at redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > 
> > > But with the latest headlines on where that site is likely
> > > headed,
> > > I think it's a great opportunity for us to possibly jump on the
> > > bandwagon inclined more towards free (as in freedom) software
> > > principles.
> > > 
> > > Possible options off the top of my head:
> > > - GitLab, pagure: either their authoritative sites or self-hosted
> > > - self-hosted cgit/whatever
> > > 
> > > It would also allow us to reconsider our workflows, e.g. using
> > > gerrit
> > > for patch review queue (current silent force-pushes is a horrible
> > > scheme!).
> > > 
> > 
> > My general view is that I also feel (and have felt) a bit uneasy
> > about
> > free software projects depending so strongly on a proprietary
> > service. However, unless self-hosting, I don't see how f.ex. GitLab
> > is
> > much of an improvement (Pagure might be a different story, but does
> > it
> > offer a comparable user experience?) in that regard, and anything
> > hosted
> > on "public" cloud is basically the same. ;)
> > 
> > crmsh used to be hosted at GNU Savannah, which is Free with a
> > capital F,
> > but the admin experience, user experience and general
> > discoverability in
> > the world at large all left something to be desired.
> > 
> > In regard to workflows, if everyone agrees, we should be able to
> > improve
> > that without moving. For example, if all changes went through pull
> > requests, there is a "required reviews" feature in github. I don't
> > know
> > if that is something everyone want, though.
> > 
> > https://help.github.com/articles/enabling-required-reviews-for-pull
> > -requests/
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Kristoffer
> 
> I think we need to hang tight and wait to see what the landscape
> looks
> like after the dust settles. There are a lot of people on different
> projects under the Clusterlabs group. To have them all move in
> coordination would NOT be easy. If we do move, we need to be certain
> that it's worth the hassle and that we're going to the right place.
> 
> I don't think either of those can be met just now. Gitlab has had
> some
> well publicized, major problems in the past. No solution I know of is
> totally open, so it's a question of "picking your poison" which
> doesn't
> make a strong "move" argument.
> 
> I vote to just hang tight, say for 3~6 months, then start a new
> thread
> to discuss further.

+1

I'd wait until the dust settles to see if a clear favorite emerges.
Hopefully this will spur the other projects to compete more strongly on
features.

My gut feeling is that ClusterLabs may end up self-hosting one or
another of the open(ish) projects; our traffic is low enough it
shouldn't involve much admin. But as you suggested, I wouldn't look
forward to the migration. It's a time sink that means less coding on
our projects.
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>