Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

[Fredrik Lundh]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

Steve Holden wrote:

>you're not on the infrastructure list, I hear. python.org could still need a
>few more roundup volunteers, but it's not like nobody's prepared to con-
>tribute manhours. don't underestimate the community.
>>

No, I'm not on the infrastructure list, but I know that capable people
*are*: and you know I am quite capable of donating my time to the cause,
when I have it to spare (and sometimes even when I don't).

what I was trying to say (between the lines) was that not only have
the people on that list worked hard to do the evaluation (not to mention
all the developers around the world that has worked even harder to set
up test trackers), there's also been a good community response to the
committee's call for "6-10 volunteers".

</F>

[Paul Rubin]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

"Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewi s.dewrites:

That, in principle, could happen to any other free software as well.
What is critical here is that SF *hosted* the installation. If we would
use a tracker that is free software, yet hosted it elsewhere, the same
thing could happen: the hoster could make modifications to it which
are non-free. Not even the GPL could protect from this case: the
hoster would be required to publish source only if he publishes
binaries, but he wouldn't publish any binaries, so he wouldn't need
to release the source changes, either.

True, though GPL 3 tries to address that. Most important is to figure
out the underlying attitude of the host. I realize it's the same
crufty software (or worse) as SF and therefore maybe not so attractive
on those grounds already, but did you think about migrating to
Savannah?

Also, even if it the software is open source and unmodified, there
still wouldn't be a guarantee that you can get the data out of it
if you want to. You *only* get the advantages of free software if
you also run it yourself. Unfortunately, there is a significant
cost associated with running the software yourself.

Well, if the cash is available, there's always the possibility of
using free software and paying someone to host it. Anyway, I wouldn't
have expected running a tracker to be that significant a task compared
with the rest of the web site, the mailing lists, the Subversion
server, the codebase itself, etc. etc. But Paul Boddie explained some
of the issues pretty well.

Despite what other people say, this *is* an issue. On python.org,
things that should get done don't, just because there is no
volunteer doing them. Hosting such a service elsewhere has the
clear advantage that you don't have to worry about most routine
maintenance jobs.

I have to wonder too why Jira is so sure to be more reliable than SF.

[David Goodger]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

So we have a problem between the PSF and the "PSF infrastructure committee",
since the latter did not put "being written in Python" has a requirement for
the tracker.

There was no problem. The committee had their mandate, to find the best
candidate for a tracker for Python. The quality of the tracker was felt
to be more important than the language it was written in or the license
it uses. The committee members worked hard to fulfill their mandate,
and they deserve the gratitude and appreciation of all of us.

I know for a fact (having raised this very issue with the committee
myself) that they took "written in Python" into consideration. Not as a
requirement though -- the requirement was simply to decide on the best
tracker, regardless of language or license.

Look at the results again. Jira and RoundUp tied for functionality, but
Jira has a hosting/admin offer behind it. That's huge. But rather than
declaring Jira the outright winner, which they could have done, the
committee has allowed the community to decide the matter. If enough
admins come forward, RoundUp will win.

I read that as a big push for "written in Python".

David Goodger

[David Goodger]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

You're cherry picking your quotes:
>
"""
In order for Roundup to be considered equivalent in terms of an overall
tracker package there needs to be a sufficient number of volunteer admins
(roughly 6 - 10 people) who can help set up and maintain the Roundup
installation.
"""
>
This is *NOT* a perfectly reasonable offer,

Yes it is:
Jira = 1st place functionality + hosting/admin provided
RoundUp = 1st place functionality

Jira wins. But the offer is to allow the community to make up the
difference. If anything, that's unfair to Jira. So why are you
complaining?

because you do not see 6-10 people
stepping up at the same time for almost *anything* in the open source world.

Then that's a failure of the open source world.

But I *do* see it happening right now. People *are* stepping up.

David Goodger

[Martin v. Löwis]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

Paul Rubin schrieb:

True, though GPL 3 tries to address that. Most important is to figure
out the underlying attitude of the host. I realize it's the same
crufty software (or worse) as SF and therefore maybe not so attractive
on those grounds already, but did you think about migrating to
Savannah?

We had a very clear procedure. We (the committee) didn't want to
manage the installation ourselves, or figure out how to set up
the software, or get the data into it. Instead, we sent out a call
to the community to come up with a demo installation for evaluation
purposes. Nobody offered to migrate the data into Savannah, so
we didn't consider it (nobody actually offered to show-case
Savannah for us, period).

There were several reasons to get off SF; it not being open
source was never a reason. Instead, ongoing complaints about
service level, and the UI were the main complaints. Savannah
is IMO worse than SF wrt. user interface, so it would have
lost in the evaluation even if a demo installation was provided.
We want to improve with that switch, not decrease usability.

>Despite what other people say, this *is* an issue. On python.org,
>things that should get done don't, just because there is no
>volunteer doing them. Hosting such a service elsewhere has the
>clear advantage that you don't have to worry about most routine
>maintenance jobs.

>
I have to wonder too why Jira is so sure to be more reliable than SF.

It may change as time evolves, but at the moment, they are *pretty*
responsive to our inquiries. Atlassian (the company behind it) uses
the same infrastructure for their commercial offerings, as well;
this might mean that we get the same availability (it might also
mean that paying customers get more attention than non-paying ones
in the long term).

With any kind of partner, there is always the risk that they don't
deliver, and you always have to invest some trust in the beginning.
It was this way when Guido moved Python to SF, and indeed, SF did
a very good job for several years (IMO). They only went unreliable
when they grow beyond expectations. The same could happen to
Atlassian, of course, in which case we would have to move again.

OTOH, the same could also happen with a group of volunteers.
It's always possible that they all run away (like that distutils
is unmaintained, and PyXML is unmaintained). Volunteers are actually
unlikely to persist in their efforts over a period of 10 years,
as their lifes and priorities change over time. If you trust
such a service to a single volunteer, you might find that the
service can become very unusable very quickly. For example, the
Python Job Board was in a very bad shape for several months,
until we managed to find Peter Kropf to take it over (who
does a very good job ever since he started).

Regards,
Martin

[Martin v. Löwis]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

Giovanni Bajo schrieb:

>* A data export is available if we decide to switch. [...]

>
Out of curiosity, how is this obtained? Is this any plan to take a daily export
or so?

Exactly so. Atlassian would generate a daily dump, and we would copy it
to a machine on python.org with a cron job.

Regards,
Martin

[Martin v. Löwis]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

Fredrik Lundh schrieb:

what I was trying to say (between the lines) was that not only have
the people on that list worked hard to do the evaluation (not to mention
all the developers around the world that has worked even harder to set
up test trackers)

That cannot be praised enough. Special thanks to Jonathan Nolen from
Atlassian to set up the Jira installation, Stefan Seefeld to set up
the Roundup installation, Alec Thomas for the Trac installation,
and James Henstridge for adding Python to the Launchpad.

To all those who complain that their favorite software XYZ wasn't
considered: apparently, nobody in the community bothered enough to
respond to the call for trackers. If nobody experienced with the
software thinks it is worthwhile to set up a demo it,
why should we review it?

Regards,
Martin

[Ben Finney]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

"fuzzylolli pop" <jarrod.roberso n@gmail.comwrit es:

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

the "PSF infrastracture committee", after weeks of evaluation,
recommends using a non open source tracker (called JIRA - never
heard before of course) for Python itself.

Does this smell "Bitkeeper fiasco" to anyone else than me?

>
Jira is given away for free to open source projects that want to use
it.

Just as Bitkeeper was.

"Given away for free" has nothing to do with the criteria being
discussed here.

--
\ "My, your, his, hers, ours, theirs, its. I'm, you're, he's, |
`\ she's, we're, they're, it's." -- Anonymous, |
_o__) alt.sysadmin.re covery |
Ben Finney

[Ben Finney]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

"Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewi s.dewrites:

Giovanni Bajo schrieb:

It is an extremely bad picture for an open source flag like Python
to go to a vendor for such an easy requirement as a bug database.

>
You fail to recognize that Python is *already* using a non-free software
for bug tracking, as do thousands of other projects. So from that point
of view, the status wouldn't change.

The whole point of moving *from* SF *to* another bug tracker is to
improve the situation, surely.

You already seem to acknowledge that using free-software tools to
develop Python is desirable. I don't see why you're being so obtuse in
this sub-thread on *why* it's desirable.

--
\ "The Stones, I love the Stones; I can't believe they're still |
`\ doing it after all these years. I watch them whenever I can: |
_o__) Fred, Barney, ..." -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney

[Ben Finney]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

"David Goodger" <dgoodger@gmail .comwrites:

Look at the results again. Jira and RoundUp tied for functionality,
but Jira has a hosting/admin offer behind it. That's huge. But
rather than declaring Jira the outright winner, which they could
have done, the committee has allowed the community to decide the
matter. If enough admins come forward, RoundUp will win.
>
I read that as a big push for "written in Python".

I prefer to read it as a big push for "not dependent on non-free
tools".

--
\ "To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no |
`\ choreography, and the dancers hit each other." -- Jack Handey |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?


Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Hello,
>
I just read this mail by Brett Cannon:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-October/069139.html

where the "PSF infrastracture committee", after weeks of evaluation, recommends
using a non open source tracker (called JIRA - never heard before of course)
for Python itself.
>
Does this smell "Bitkeeper fiasco" to anyone else than me?
--
Giovanni Bajo

Fascinating.

The python foundation suggests a non-python non-open-source bugtracking
tool for python.

It's like saying: "The python community is not able to produce the
tools needed to drive development of python forward."

Anyway. The whole selection process is intransparent.

The commitee should have stated "goals" and "requiremen ts" with a
public verification of the tools against them.

-

http://case.lazaridis.com/wiki/Tracking

..

[Terry Reedy]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?


"Ben Finney" <bignose+hate s-spam@benfinney. id.auwrote in message
news:87lknvelb3 .fsf@benfinney. id.au...

The whole point of moving *from* SF *to* another bug tracker is to
improve the situation, surely.

The current situation is that the limitations and intermittant failures of
the SF tracker sufficiently impede the Python development process that some
people were motivated to do the work to find a better alternative.

You already seem to acknowledge that using free-software tools to
develop Python is desirable.

The committee already said so by saying that with other things equal, it
would choose Roundup.

I don't see why you're being so obtuse

I think name calling is out of line here.

Terry Jan Reedy

[Robert Hicks]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?


Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Hello,
>
I just read this mail by Brett Cannon:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-October/069139.html

where the "PSF infrastracture committee", after weeks of evaluation, recommends
using a non open source tracker (called JIRA - never heard before of course)
for Python itself.
>
Does this smell "Bitkeeper fiasco" to anyone else than me?
--
Giovanni Bajo

No.

Robert

[Ben Finney]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.e duwrites:

"Ben Finney" <bignose+hate s-spam@benfinney. id.auwrote:

I don't see why you're being so obtuse

I think name calling is out of line here.

So do I, which is why I addressed observed actions instead.

--
\ "I got a postcard from my best friend, it was a satellite |
`\ picture of the entire Earth. On the back he wrote, 'Wish you |
_o__) were here'." -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney

[Aahz]

Re: Python to use a non open source bug tracker?

In article <eg0q7a$u0e$1@n nrp.ngi.it>,
Giovanni Bajo <raNOsky@deveSP AMler.comwrote:

>
>I wonder why the PSF infrastructure committee believes that a group of 6-10
>people is needed to "install and maintain" Roundup.

Because Roundup has been "the answer" for at least two or three years,
but somehow it never has gotten enough concerted attention to make it
happen. I'm sure that experience informed much of the Infrastructure
Committee's work.

I suspect in the end that if four or five people who are known to follow
through on their commitments volunteered that probably would be enough.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"LL YR VWL R BLNG T S" -- www.nancybuttons.com