[Qgis-psc] again about the bug tracker
Nyall Dawson
nyall.dawson at gmail.com
Thu Oct 11 16:41:43 PDT 2018
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 01:59, Vincent Picavet (ml)
<vincent.ml at oslandia.com> wrote:
> > This was the grant, which was rejected, but
> > * why? because we want to stick to Redmine? because they prefer Github /
> > not wasting energy? 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.
Can I request that this topic be split out into its own conversation?
You've clearly got concerns with the current grant process, so let's
not let the discussion about bug tracker/code repo get locked up with
this other discussion too. (Heck, it's complex/sensitive enough as it
is!).
Nyall
>
> > * it could have been ask to the PSC to sponsor this one (like many
> > other projects: documentation, Python API, etc).
>
> Two points here.
> - I admit when the grant was rejected I have been clearly demotivated
> and frustrated. I did not get any support except from a few people (
> thanks to them ), and moved to more pressing things.
> - The way anyone can ask the PSC to sponsor something in particular is
> not clear to me. I did not even know it was possible except for
> bugfixing efforts, before the specific documentation funding. I even
> found it weird to see something funded outside grant applications, which
> I believed was the only way (with bugfixing) to get something funded by
> QGIS.org.
> I really would like this to be written somewhere : who can ask, what
> for, what conditions, etc.
>
> > My point is that the road decided in Madeira (investigating the costs of
> > moving to gitlab) is a fail at the moment. Of course, we can ask to be
> > patient but this issue has been raised for at least 5 years. You say it
> > needs time, I'm saying it needs energy. I'd love to some more
> > pro-activity on the topic than just discussing here.
> >
> > My point that the current way is a fail might be wrong. At least, it's a
> > personal point of view, I agree.
>
> Yes, not mine at least. It is a work in progress, waiting for funding
> and hard work. If you have one or the other available, I would be glad
> to re-enter the game. Nothing is free and I rather prefer no engagement
> into something than a failed engagement.
>
> > 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 ?
>
> >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.
>
> > But in any case, things should move a bit faster.
>
> Ready to move on, if we have resources available.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vincent
>
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 à 13:24, Vincent Picavet (ml)
> > <vincent.ml at oslandia.com <mailto:vincent.ml at oslandia.com>> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Denis, all,
> >
> > On 10/10/2018 15:32, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
> > > The last issue about Redmine not sending mail makes me write again
> > about
> > > the topic.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose to change direction from the decision which
> > has been
> > > taken in Madeira about moving to Gitlab.
> >
> > No decision has been taken in Madeira. I remember personally explaining
> > that taking a migration decision should be backed by a full
> > demonstration of capabilities, by clear explanations on advantages,
> > drawbacks and implications.
> > We should not do this kind of architecture change lightly.
> >
> > I have written all preliminary study results here :
> > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'ts been roughly half a year and nothing moved except for a declined
> > > grant proposal.
> >
> > Yes, for this kind of action, we need time, we need funding. I applied
> > for a grant, and it has been rejected. I would be glad to resume the
> > work on this subject, but it needs interest and funding, or it will not
> > move forward.
> >
> > > I have heard something from Steven Feldman at the FOSS4G which rang a
> > > bell. I don't recall the exact formulation nor my phrasing is as
> > precise
> > > but he advised to be pragmatic and to avoid losing too much energy on
> > > ethical or not-strictly-related-to-the-topic issues...and to me, we're
> > > looking at something (Gitlab) which represents weeks of
> > development just
> > > for the CI and which barely bring anything valuable over Github
> > while we
> > > stick to a non satisfying solution (Redmine).
> >
> > Please Denis, at least read the mail archives and the work already
> > achieved before posting this kind of false statement :
> > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/wiki/QGIS-Platform-migration-plan
> >
> > It is true that CI has to be tested, but keeping a read-only GH copy
> > should be enough to get Travis working, and give time for full migration
> > to GitLab.
> >
> > On the Github side, nothing has been done to prove that a migration is
> > even doable without problem.
> >
> > > I would not deny that ethical is important...but what/who are
> > working for?
> >
> > This is your appreciation of things, and it may largely differ from
> > person to person. Trying to push this opinion directly to PSC although
> > we have already discussed these topic more broadly does not seem the
> > right thing to do.
> >
> > Anyway, if we want to go forward with this topic, then the initial
> > proposal of the grant application is still valid. I am confident that
> > with budget we can finish up the migration study and reach a state where
> > we proved that it is a good way to go.
> >
> > Any concrete help is welcome too on this subject.
> >
> > One other open question also is the cost of hosting and maintaining the
> > solution, but this is more or less the same as for Redmine.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Denis Rouzaud
> > > denis at opengis.ch <mailto:denis at opengis.ch>
> > <mailto:denis at opengis.ch <mailto:denis at opengis.ch>>
> > > +41 76 370 21 22 <tel:+41%2076%20370%2021%2022>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Qgis-psc mailing list
> > > Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Denis Rouzaud
> > denis at opengis.ch <mailto:denis at opengis.ch>
> > +41 76 370 21 22
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
More information about the Qgis-psc
mailing list