[Freeipa-devel] Releasing testing tools as standalone projects

[Rich Megginson]

On 11/04/2014 10:30 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 04:47 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>> Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> There's been some interest in releasing pieces of FreeIPA's testing
>>> infrastructure so it can be reused in other projects.
>>> I will soon take the pytest-beakerlib plugin (currently in my patch
>>> 0672), and making a stand-alone project out of it. Later I'll extract
>>> the common pieces of the integration testing framework, and release 
>>> that
>>> independently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we want projects projects like these to be hosted on Fedorahosted?
>>> That would be the 100% open-source solution.
>>>
>>> Or do we want to put it under a freeipa organization on Github, since
>>> we're more likely to get external contributors there?
>>
>> Why do you think it would get more contributors from github? Because yet
>> another account isn't required, or the contributor process is perhaps
>> better understood (via pull requests)?
>
> Both. The community is larger (i.e. contributors are likely to already 
> have an account on Github), and the contribution process is nowadays 
> more familiar to most people.

+1, from my experience with the openstack community, and with redhat - 
see github.com/redhat-openstack, et. al.

>
> And I'm not talking about a proprietary process here: the pull request 
> process is "publish a Git repo, and nag people to merge from it". It's 
> built into Git itself – see git-request-pull(1).
> Github makes this easy, and adds a Web UI and some inevitable (but 
> optional) proprietary "perks". But underneath it's still Git and 
> e-mail if you care to use those.

+1

>
>>> Or both? (Would we want to "officially" mirror the project to Github
>>> from FH?)
>>
>> I'd be in favor of fedorahosted because you get a tracker and wiki as
>> well, and having the repo there would round things out.
>
> Yeah, the tracker is a reason for FH. Github does host git-backed 
> wikis using an open-source backend, but it doesn't have an acceptable 
> bug tracker.
>
What's wrong with the github issue tracker?