this is a continuation of a discussion which originated on
this is a continuation of a discussion which originated on
FWIW there has been a forge-fed project setup on pagure, mirroring the repos on notabug and github, for as long as the notabug repo has existed - no one has used it yet; but it is ready to be used by anyone - all three of those forges could be used today; so there is not really any problem with the general “how to contact forge-fed” - i get an email if anyone comments on any ticket against any of those repos; and unlike notabug, i can reply via email to github and pagure - probably the FENEAS gitlab instance would suffice just the same; so i have no preference between those - IMHO though, it is not clear that forge-fed needs to have any forge at all
there has also been discussion of using vervis; but its rudimentary GUI interface may be seen by many people, as not polished enough to use - also, if vervis does not yet support emails interactions, i would not consider it as an improvement the OP on notabug was mainly a request for forge-fed to demonstrate dog-fooding - dog-fooding is a fine goal for projects which make a tool, for which the project itself, has an essential use-case internally - i dont believe that forge-fed is such a project, which has am essential use-case for its own tool, other than as a demo - which is not to mention the practical fact, of the forge-fed tool not yet existing - i suggest that the forge-fed project does not really need to have a forge for itself; for the same reason that the git-pub repo on github, never had any essential reason to exist
at one time, i had put some source code for reference implementations into the forge-fed git repo; but that was removed from the notabug clone for some reason, i dont know why or by who - so, everything in the VCS repo now, is documentation which could be on a wiki, and the bug tracker is being used essentially as a second discussion forum, with mostly duplicate, but isolated, discussion threads - that is only splintering the users who may be watching either the notabug issue tracker, from those watching the discussion forum - so, it could actually be a benefit to the forge-fed project, to have no forge at all; in order to concentrate discussions onto this forum
consider this proposal:
- the notabug issue tracker could be reserved for forge-fed related web and demo code
- let all other forge-fed related work be done and presented on the ‘vervis’ vervis project on fr33domlover’s server
- have all discussions of undecided or non-essential issues on FENEAS forum
- redirect people from any of github, pagure, notabug to the FENEAS forum, or vervis tracker for bug reports and for watching fine-grained progress activity
that notabug ticket is a fairly clear example of a discussion, which is not related to a decided work item for anyone, and requires no action or tracking - it is therefore, more appropriate for a discussion forum or mailing list - if there is any “bug” or “issue” to be “tracked” in that ticket, it is a bug to be reported against the notabug project, and tracked by its maintainer - if it were reported properly against notabug though, one would find that the issue is already known, and was in fact, done intentionally by the notabug admin - from the forge-fed perspective, it is clearly just a discussion about what could potentially be done, in order to address the alleged problem, and if it really is a problem for forge-fed at all; but not anything, which has been decided to be a work-item to track
the notabug issue tracker is currently producing too much volume - it is infeasible to sort out which are the interesting work events that i may be interested in following, or bugs that i may be inclined to fix; and which are merely undecided or bike-shedding discussions, which should be on the discussion forum, and which i can not easily reply to anyways - if there are any systematic flaws related to the forge-fed communication channels, i would suggest that prominent among them, is the shoe-horning of the discussion forum use-case, onto an issue tracker; especially when there is already a dedicated discussion forum with a user-base isolated from the forge
i would like to follow the forge-fed work progress; but the notabug issue tracker is just noise in my inbox now - also, most of the actual work is presumably on vervis; and vervis is dog-fooding, which is usually a good thing, but i am not receiving that vervis activity in my inbox, which could be the best source of information on “what is being done”
i can barely find the time to read everything posted to the FENEAS forum - if the notabug tracker is mainly another forum, and if my code is not going to receive any bug reports or merge requests from the notabug issue tracker, i am probably going to stop receiving its events
I think you’re being a bit over the top here. There was a work issue to be tracked, if only tangentially related to the project. I clearly specified in the issue report what was being reported on. At the time of reporting, it was not possible to even see issues on the notabug project, so it was not clear whether it was deliberate or not. Now that the project’s issue tracker has returned it is much more clear. I reported the only place I could.
I would suggest that ForgeFed is spread out all over the place at is is not clear from looking at any one of them what else is available and what each should be used for. A README and/or navigation header (as possible) on each venue that both cross linked the available venues and clearly explained what each were best for would go a long ways. For issue trackers a reporting template could help redirect questions/discussions away from the tracker towards the forum.
This point is in fact already partially covered and tracked in notabug issue 91.