Hi Infrastructure team,
Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results, and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to the community.
Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:13 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Hi Infrastructure team,
Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results, and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to the community.
Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
if someone needs hosting RIGHT NOW, then they can use their fedorapeople account for the hour or two it'll take for someone from fedora infrastructure to get to it.
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
-sv
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:22:03PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:13 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Hi Infrastructure team,
Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results, and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to the community.
Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
if someone needs hosting RIGHT NOW, then they can use their fedorapeople account for the hour or two it'll take for someone from fedora infrastructure to get to it.
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
I agree with this statement -- I'd rather have people manually checking requests as they come rather than manually checking each automated request and possibly going through a revocation process if any abuse were to arise.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:43:47PM -0600, Ian Weller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:22:03PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 17:13 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Hi Infrastructure team,
Not sure if this inquiry belongs here or on websites, but I'll start here. Personally my experience has been that the Fedora admins act on requests for Fedora Hosted projects requests very quickly. Some potential contributors may want or need more instantaneous results, and I would hate to see folks going to somewhere like Google Code if we can keep their projects more open and transparent (and portable) to the community.
Does the team have any sense as to whether we could further automate the Fedora Hosted project creation process?
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
if someone needs hosting RIGHT NOW, then they can use their fedorapeople account for the hour or two it'll take for someone from fedora infrastructure to get to it.
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
I agree with this statement -- I'd rather have people manually checking requests as they come rather than manually checking each automated request and possibly going through a revocation process if any abuse were to arise.
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o until their Hosted project appears?
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o until their Hosted project appears?
All the info about the things you can do on fedorapeople is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org
Paul: Is there a specific case where someone was outraged by having to wait to get a fedorahosted project and stormed off to google code instead? And, frankly, do we care? Is our goal to get angry, impatient developers to host their code at fedorahosted?
-sv
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 08:23:00AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o until their Hosted project appears?
All the info about the things you can do on fedorapeople is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org
Paul: Is there a specific case where someone was outraged by having to wait to get a fedorahosted project and stormed off to google code instead? And, frankly, do we care? Is our goal to get angry, impatient developers to host their code at fedorahosted?
Outraged, not that I'm aware of. That shouldn't stop us from seeing if there are specific improvements we can make that lower contributor barriers. Our goal is not to encourage angry, impatient developers, but simply to make sure that we make things as easy as sanity allows for everyone to work with our project.
I'll take on the role of $RANDOM_NONANGRY_DEVELOPER to demonstrate. I hear about Fedora Hosted from a marketing related activity like an article on the web or word of mouth from a friend or a list post. I google it and arrive at the top link, http://fedorahosted.org. Neither the FAQ nor the New Project instructions tell me that I have an alternative available, the fedorapeople.org route. A wiki search for 'git repo' or 'git repository' doesn't tell me either.
Wouldn't just adding a FAQ entry be an easy way to give people more information without requiring them to scour the wiki?
Patch attached as a suggestion.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o until their Hosted project appears?
Are we then going to require new hostees to have access to fedorapeople.org? Because I don't think that will really help either them or us.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:30 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 08:09 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Does the Fedora Hosted FAQ or instruction sheet have a link to the location on the wiki describing how people can get by with fpeeps.o until their Hosted project appears?
Are we then going to require new hostees to have access to fedorapeople.org? Because I don't think that will really help either them or us.
require? no - but it tells them if they have a fedorapeople account that they can set up a git repo there, instead, if they so wish.
-sv
seth vidal wrote:
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project hosting sites.
Rahul
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Can't we automate manual checking? Do you understand that the word 'manual' is opposite to the word 'automate'? If you automate it then it is no longer manual. If it is manual, then it is not automatic.
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project hosting sites.
If by 'it' you mean "have a giant pile of unmaintained pkgs that no one is updating or caring for and are just wasting space", then yes, repo.or.cz does that very well.
-sv
seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:56 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Can't we automate manual checking? Do you understand that the word 'manual' is opposite to the word 'automate'? If you automate it then it is no longer manual. If it is manual, then it is not automatic.
Oh, come on. No need to play super smart. Isn't it obvious? I meant, can the sanity checking be automated?
If by 'it' you mean "have a giant pile of unmaintained pkgs that no one is updating or caring for and are just wasting space", then yes, repo.or.cz does that very well.
Lots of people are taking advantage of it precisely because it is trivial to sign up. Yes, that means some of the projects will be abandoned but look at the number of projects in fedorahosted.org which haven't even bothered to edit the front page and provide a simple description of what it is all about. I don't think we are doing anything that is obviously better.
Rahul
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Oh, come on. No need to play super smart. Isn't it obvious? I meant, can the sanity checking be automated?
Part of the sanity checking is looking at what's requested itself.
If by 'it' you mean "have a giant pile of unmaintained pkgs that no one is updating or caring for and are just wasting space", then yes, repo.or.cz does that very well.
Lots of people are taking advantage of it precisely because it is trivial to sign up. Yes, that means some of the projects will be abandoned but look at the number of projects in fedorahosted.org which haven't even bothered to edit the front page and provide a simple description of what it is all about. I don't think we are doing anything that is obviously better.
And do you think the quality of the projects at fedorahosted is going to get better or get worse if we make it happen automatically?
I think it will decline.
-sv
seth vidal wrote:
Part of the sanity checking is looking at what's requested itself.
What do you look for?
And do you think the quality of the projects at fedorahosted is going to get better or get worse if we make it happen automatically?
I think it will decline.
Perhaps it will but maybe it will be offset by more people taking advantage of it. A thriving community can afford to have a few less active members. It is a potential trade off to consider.
Rahul
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
Part of the sanity checking is looking at what's requested itself.
What do you look for?
Things that would probably be looked for:
Easy to automatically sanity check Fedora Sucks project Fedora Eats Donkey Dicks project
Hard to sanity check automatically check Upload of the cisco source code from pirate bay saying it is a Public Domain project. Upload of the entire Millie Vanili ogg archive under the same license.
Fedora Unity and Cooperation KDE- Gnome might raise some eyebrows but would not be easy to auto-sanity-check.
And do you think the quality of the projects at fedorahosted is going to get better or get worse if we make it happen automatically?
I think it will decline.
Perhaps it will but maybe it will be offset by more people taking advantage of it. A thriving community can afford to have a few less active members. It is a potential trade off to consider.
A thriving community also requires the resources to maintain it. Are we positioning ourselves as a new SourceForge? Do we have the resources to make it not suck because everyone and their brother have uploaded their 3 line patch to the kernel as a new git tree? Having seen what happens when Red Hat is not ready to add disk/cpu/bandwidth as much as people want it.. its better to be picky and up than popular and down. Those who forget sourceware.org are prone to repeat it.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Fedora Unity and Cooperation KDE- Gnome might raise some eyebrows but would not be easy to auto-sanity-check.
/me raises one or two eyebrows...
I see we're being used as an example but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Fedora Unity and Cooperation KDE- Gnome might raise some eyebrows but would not be easy to auto-sanity-check.
/me raises one or two eyebrows...
I see we're being used as an example but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying ;-)
The acronym for the project could be F. U. C. K. Gnome. I was trying to remember various project names that have gotten past auto-testers and then come up as a problem (Getting a username of first letter firstname, last name... with the name given as Frederick Uckyou (where you was replaced with various things.)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project hosting sites.
Can you list which ones? google code might be automated (The docs make it look like fill out web form, instantly have hosting) but Sourceforge, gna, and berlios have a manual review.
-Toshio
I can confirm that google-code is automated. I have one project hosted there.
do you think a "happy medium" would work? set it up for "instant access" to "owner" but review by Fedora Infrastructure is required before read only and/or read write repositories are opened?
Mike.
2009/1/27 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
imo -1. Part of the benefit of the process being manual is that a little sanity checking is applied.
Can that be automated?
Making it instantaneous and automatic just makes it prone to abuse.
http://repo.or.cz/ seems to do it well. So do other bigger project hosting sites.
Can you list which ones? google code might be automated (The docs make it look like fill out web form, instantly have hosting) but Sourceforge, gna, and berlios have a manual review.
-Toshio
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Mike wrote:
I can confirm that google-code is automated. I have one project hosted there.
do you think a "happy medium" would work? set it up for "instant access" to "owner" but review by Fedora Infrastructure is required before read only and/or read write repositories are opened?
I think it's time to chime in on this. I'm generally 100% for self service but in this case I like the way we have it now. Especially until a reaping policy can be put in place that people won't flip their lids about.
As far as I'm concerned, Fedora Hosted is not a place for fly by night vaporware and I think having this manual process prevents it a bit. Having to create a ticket, having to respond when we ask questions, etc, shows they have at least the commitment to create the project and wait for it. Does it have its downsides? Yes, you have to wait a little bit. But this is supposed to be a high quality hosting setup, the cost is a bit of time.
Additionally I like the personal touch of having to interact with someone to actually get this done. To me it feels more like a partnership, there actually is someone on the other end of this stuff, its not just some large souless machine. If they've got problems they know exactly where to go.
-1 from me unless someone can give me a clear benefit from the views of Fedora, (and no, making stuff up doesn't count, do research, draw a conclusion, send your proposition to the list)
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:29 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Mike wrote:
I can confirm that google-code is automated. I have one project hosted there.
do you think a "happy medium" would work? set it up for "instant access" to "owner" but review by Fedora Infrastructure is required before read only and/or read write repositories are opened?
I think it's time to chime in on this. I'm generally 100% for self service but in this case I like the way we have it now. Especially until a reaping policy can be put in place that people won't flip their lids about.
As far as I'm concerned, Fedora Hosted is not a place for fly by night vaporware and I think having this manual process prevents it a bit. Having to create a ticket, having to respond when we ask questions, etc, shows they have at least the commitment to create the project and wait for it. Does it have its downsides? Yes, you have to wait a little bit. But this is supposed to be a high quality hosting setup, the cost is a bit of time.
Additionally I like the personal touch of having to interact with someone to actually get this done. To me it feels more like a partnership, there actually is someone on the other end of this stuff, its not just some large souless machine. If they've got problems they know exactly where to go.
-1 from me unless someone can give me a clear benefit from the views of Fedora, (and no, making stuff up doesn't count, do research, draw a conclusion, send your proposition to the list)
-Mike
As one of the initial creators of the Fedora Hosted offerings, I have to agree with Mike McGrath here.
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ian Weller -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Jesse Keating -
Mike -
Mike McGrath -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Seth Vidal -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Toshio Kuratomi