[Qgis-psc] again about the bug tracker

[Denis Rouzaud]

Hi,

Le jeu. 11 oct. 2018 à 11:58, Vincent Picavet (ml) <vincent.ml at oslandia.com>
a écrit :

> Hello,
>
>  because voters prefer flashy features?
>
> The latter is clearly the reason. And I do think this is the limit of
> our current grant application program. It works well to decide for new
> features, but not for ground-level, hard, not shiny but necessary work.
> This has been seen multiple times with latest call for grant
> applications. I can understand it from a user point of view, but I do
> think this is the role of QGIS.Org to find a way to mitigate this.
> Funding features is not hard, while funding "uninteresting" but
> necessary work is. Bugfixing, bug triaging, PR Review, documentation,
> infrastructure... My opinion is that QGIS.Org should concentrate on
> these topics.
> This is not the main issue here though.
>

totally agree here, that would be worth an other discussion.



>
> > In such case, we'll have to wait for another 6? months to get an
> > estimate.
>
> Not an estimate : a full migration plan. Again, we don't do pet-project
> for such an important migration.
> What would be an alternative doable faster ?
>

Well to me the end goal in this project is *getting a new bug tracker* not
*migrating to a complete open-source solution*. That's maybe that's the
root of our difference in point of view.
Give me the bug-tracker on Github during the migration and I'll be happy ;)

(I've discussed it again a few weeks ago with Matthias who did the quick
migration test and was saying everything was there except the original
author of comment in the issue, which would be wrote as a comment).

>
> >To say it'll take roughly a year to move the CI (I don't think
> > we can live with the code on Gitlab while the CI is on Travis/Github).
>
> I don't see why we could not not live with code, issues, PR on gitlab
> and CI working with a GitHub proxy.
>

So a PR would be forwarded to Github to run Travis and the result of tests
would be sent back to Gitlab?
Let's try not to enter technical solutions, but is this your idea?
Are there existing solutions that do this?


> > But in any case, things should move a bit faster.
>
> Ready to move on, if we have resources available.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vincent
>
>
At the end, it's again a matter of personal opinion: I think the huge
effort of migration is not worth it. And my two concerns are:
* the CI question is under-estimated, there is literally months of
development on it. And modifying these scripts is always a huge
time-consuming operation. Even more if people looking at it are not the
actual maintainers.
* the hidden cost of moving away from Github (the whole change of
environment for end-users, changing the eco-system)

Maybe, the key question here, as written above, is what are we aiming at?
* getting a new bug-tracker?
* migrating to an open-source solution?

Maybe they have to be asked separately, maybe not.
That was the goal of the rejected vote.

I will push it a bit further and say that what has been decided in Madeira
has no stronger value than the rejected vote a few months ago.
I'd like a clear decision to be taken here. I think this needs to addressed
by the PSC and probably voted by the community.

Cheers,
Denis




-- 

Denis Rouzaud
denis at opengis.ch  <denis at opengis.ch>
+41 76 370 21 22
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20181011/ac0c4f0e/attachment.html>