again about the bug tracker

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

again about the bug tracker

3nids
Hi PSC,

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.

I'ts been roughly half a year and nothing moved except for a declined grant proposal.

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).

I would not deny that ethical is important...but what/who are working for?

Best wishes,
Denis

--

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

ginetto
ouch! I didn't know anything about declined grant to move to GitLab... what was the reasons?

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 15:32, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi PSC,

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.

I'ts been roughly half a year and nothing moved except for a declined grant proposal.

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).

I would not deny that ethical is important...but what/who are working for?

Best wishes,
Denis

--
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Régis Haubourg -2

Hi,

the reason was the community vote.. As always, votes mainly focus on features or tasks that touch users directly.

Cheers

Régis


On 10/10/2018 16:07, Luigi Pirelli wrote:
ouch! I didn't know anything about declined grant to move to GitLab... what was the reasons?

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 15:32, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi PSC,

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.

I'ts been roughly half a year and nothing moved except for a declined grant proposal.

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).

I would not deny that ethical is important...but what/who are working for?

Best wishes,
Denis

--
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

-- 
Open Source GIS Expert / Water management 

mail: [hidden email] 
tél: <a style="color:#00001f;background-color:#ffffdf;-moz-border-radius:3px;cursor:pointer" title="Utiliser comme numéro" class="telified" nr="0033184257870" href="sip:0033184257870">0033 184 257 870
---------------------------------
http://oslandia.com/

OSLANDIA IS AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY SPECIALIZED IN GIS ARCHITECTURE. WE
PROVIDE SERVICE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH WE ARE EDITORS OR
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS.

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

ginetto
ha ok, so probably we should have part of the grant decided "internally" to finance infrastructure?
Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 16:09, Régis Haubourg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

the reason was the community vote.. As always, votes mainly focus on features or tasks that touch users directly.

Cheers

Régis


On 10/10/2018 16:07, Luigi Pirelli wrote:
ouch! I didn't know anything about declined grant to move to GitLab... what was the reasons?

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 15:32, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi PSC,

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.

I'ts been roughly half a year and nothing moved except for a declined grant proposal.

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).

I would not deny that ethical is important...but what/who are working for?

Best wishes,
Denis

--
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

-- 
Open Source GIS Expert / Water management 

mail: [hidden email] 
tél: 0033 184 257 870
---------------------------------
http://oslandia.com/

OSLANDIA IS AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY SPECIALIZED IN GIS ARCHITECTURE. WE
PROVIDE SERVICE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH WE ARE EDITORS OR
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS.
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Andreas Neumann-4
In reply to this post by Régis Haubourg -2

Hi,

Actually, the PSC could still decide that this is an important project that needs to be financed outside of the QGIS grants. We can do that. No problem.

However, if I remember the discussions in Madeira, there were no clear plans around and who would do what. The grant proposal was meant to provide more 

Now, if I understand Denis, he suggests to have everything in github, while many others would favour gitlab (but it would be a lot of work to migrate things).

So, the PSC needs to have a clear proposal (without loosing a whole lot of issue history) and then probably a vote from the core devs, to move on with this. And whether to go with github or gitlab.

Andreas

On 2018-10-10 16:09, Régis Haubourg wrote:

Hi,

the reason was the community vote.. As always, votes mainly focus on features or tasks that touch users directly.

Cheers

Régis


On 10/10/2018 16:07, Luigi Pirelli wrote:
ouch! I didn't know anything about declined grant to move to GitLab... what was the reasons?

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 15:32, Denis Rouzaud <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi PSC,
 
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.
 
I'ts been roughly half a year and nothing moved except for a declined grant proposal.
 
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).
 
I would not deny that ethical is important...but what/who are working for?
 
Best wishes,
Denis
 
--
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

-- 
Open Source GIS Expert / Water management 

mail: [hidden email] 
tél: <a class="telified" style="color: #00001f; background-color: #ffffdf; -moz-border-radius: 3px; cursor: pointer;" title="Utiliser comme num&eacute;ro" href="sip:0033184257870" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">0033 184 257 870
---------------------------------
http://oslandia.com/

OSLANDIA IS AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY SPECIALIZED IN GIS ARCHITECTURE. WE
PROVIDE SERVICE ON OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE FOR WHICH WE ARE EDITORS OR
RECOGNIZED EXPERTS.

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc



_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Vincent Picavet (ml)
In reply to this post by 3nids
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
> [hidden email]  <mailto:[hidden email]>
> +41 76 370 21 22
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

3nids
Hi Vincent,

This was raised to PSC since all the folks involved follow this list while the opposite is not true (PSC following qgis-dev). My intention was not to hide anything, I'm sorry for this.

I have already read the page on the wiki a few times, and there is pretty much no change since Madeira. 
Some put a lot of energy to convince to investigate towards Gitlab and this relied on the production of an estimate of the cost of the migration.

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?
* it could  have been ask to the PSC to sponsor this one (like many other projects: documentation, Python API, 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.
In such case, we'll have to wait for another 6? months to get an estimate. 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).

But in any case, things should move a bit faster.

Greetings,

Denis


Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 à 13:24, Vincent Picavet (ml) <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]  <mailto:[hidden email]>
> <a href="tel:+41%2076%20370%2021%2022" value="+41763702122" target="_blank">+41 76 370 21 22
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

--

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Jürgen E. Fischer
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-4
Hi Andreas,

On Wed, 10. Oct 2018 at 17:20:58 +0200, Andreas Neumann wrote:
> So, the PSC needs to have a clear proposal (without loosing a whole lot
> of issue history) and then probably a vote from the core devs, to move
> on with this. And whether to go with github or gitlab.

Not sure, but wasn't there also the option to link redmine to gitlab?  If
github could do that, we probably wouldn't be talking.


Jürgen

--
Jürgen E. Fischer           norBIT GmbH             Tel. +49-4931-918175-31
Dipl.-Inf. (FH)             Rheinstraße 13          Fax. +49-4931-918175-50
Software Engineer           D-26506 Norden             http://www.norbit.de

norBIT Gesellschaft fuer Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH
Rheinstrasse 13, 26506 Norden
GF: Jelto Buurman, HR: Amtsgericht Aurich HRB 100827
Datenschutzerklaerung: https://www.norbit.de/83/

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

signature.asc (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Vincent Picavet (ml)
In reply to this post by 3nids
Hello,

> This was raised to PSC since all the folks involved follow this list
> while the opposite is not true (PSC following qgis-dev). My intention
> was not to hide anything, I'm sorry for this.
>
> I have already read the page on the wiki a few times, and there is
> pretty much no change since Madeira. 
> Some put a lot of energy to convince to investigate towards Gitlab and
> this relied on the production of an estimate of the cost of the migration.

Every single change as important and impactful as this one should have a
clear path, and an estimation of full costs and implications.

> 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.

> * 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)
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     > +41 76 370 21 22 <tel:+41%2076%20370%2021%2022>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Qgis-psc mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>     >
>
> --
>
> Denis Rouzaud
> [hidden email]  <mailto:[hidden email]>
> +41 76 370 21 22
>
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

3nids
Hi,

Le jeu. 11 oct. 2018 à 11:58, Vincent Picavet (ml) <[hidden email]> 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



 
--

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Nyall Dawson
In reply to this post by Vincent Picavet (ml)
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 01:59, Vincent Picavet (ml)
<[hidden email]> 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)
> > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> >     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >     > +41 76 370 21 22 <tel:+41%2076%20370%2021%2022>
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > Qgis-psc mailing list
> >     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >     > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> >     >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Denis Rouzaud
> > [hidden email]  <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > +41 76 370 21 22
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Budgeting 'unattractive' work via grants and PSC (was again about the bug tracker)

Tim Sutton-6
Hi All

Just a couple of meta-thoughts on the funding side:

In terms of ad-hoc funding support from the PSC, each year the PSC develops a budget proposal which is approved in the general meeting. You can check in with Andreas when the next budget is due to come out, but it is simple enough to raise a request for ‘infrastructure’ work to be included in the budget. We have done this in the past for documentation, sysadmin etc. cost items and there is no reason why additional infrastructure items can’t be added there, nothing irregular about that from my point of view. So my suggestion is figure out how much you need for the migration of the issue tracker (and maybe also try to get a regular annual maintenance amount added to the budget) and then ask Andreas if it can be included the budget proposal for the general meeting.

IIRC (Andreas can correct me if I am wrong) there is also a budget for some ad-hoc costs but I think it would not be enough to cover the migration. Changing the budget (for larger items) in mid-cycle should also be easy enough to do with a simple community vote and I suspect there would be no resistance for a request for budget for issue tracker migration. 


With regards to the grant programme: I generally like the features we get from the grant programme, but if other’s don’t like the approach, simply raise a motion to change it e.g. we could do themed grant programmes like ‘2019 we invite proposals relating to improvements of our QA and Testing infrastructure’, or request specific wording to be added to indicate which types of proposals may be submitted.

My point really here is that you should not see the budget and grant programme as a constraint but rather as a resource and I am sure the PSC would favourably support (through the above mechanisms) any reasonable request to find money for important infrastructure work, improve the grant process etc.

Rock on guys!

Regards

Tim


On 12 Oct 2018, at 01:41, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]> wrote:


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

 




---

Tim Sutton





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

smime.p7s (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Budgeting 'unattractive' work via grants and PSC (was again about the bug tracker)

pcav
Hi Tim,


Il 10/12/2018 08:06 AM, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
>
> My point really here is that you should not see the budget and grant
> programme as a constraint but rather as a resource and I am sure the
> PSC would favourably support (through the above mechanisms) any
> reasonable request to find money for important infrastructure work,
> improve the grant process etc.
>
>
fully agreed, thanks Tim for clarifying.
All the best.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Budgeting 'unattractive' work via grants and PSC (was again about the bug tracker)

Vincent Picavet (ml)
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6
Hi Tim,

On 12/10/2018 08:06, Tim Sutton wrote:
> Just a couple of meta-thoughts on the funding side:
[..]
> My point really here is that you should not see the budget and grant
> programme as a constraint but rather as a resource and I am sure the PSC
> would favourably support (through the above mechanisms) any reasonable
> request to find money for important infrastructure work, improve the
> grant process etc.

Thanks a lot Tim for this full clarification ! Great to hear all this.

If we can make specific requests for budgets outside of Grant
Application, and budget is available, it is less important that Grant
Application favor ground work over new features. Seems a good balanced
way to go.

It would be really good to have this summary written somewhere available
to anyone. Not sure exactly where though.

As for the infrastructure, we will make a specific budget request to
move things on again then.

Thanks again !

Vincent

>
> Rock on guys!
>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
>
>> On 12 Oct 2018, at 01:41, Nyall Dawson <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <http://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 <http://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
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *Tim Sutton*
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: again about the bug tracker

Matthias Kuhn 🌍
In reply to this post by Vincent Picavet (ml)
Hi all,

thanks a lot for this fruitful discussion!

I am very much in favor of moving the issue tracker forward, it's really
a pity to see us running in circles for this for half a decade already.

On 10/11/18 5:58 PM, Vincent Picavet (ml) 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.

I tend to disagree.
Looking at the last results, we have various ground work proposals
sponsored (stability for processing, osgeo4w updates, ogc compliance,
training manual), so that does not seem to be the reason.

I assume that this particular proposal has not been selected because of
lack of conviction on the chosen path and risks. As Denis wrote in the
last emails, there are some open questions about the real impact. I am
sure that if a proposal for changing the issue tracker or even the
complete platform is backed up by the community it will be accepted by a
grant proposal (or the PSC).

I wonder how we can find out what the real reasons are, maybe we really
need to have the discussion if we want a new issue tracker or a new
platform, as Denis suggested?


Best regards
Matthias

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc