Just one thing to point out here… so, we have pagure.io (a general
pagure forge) and src.fedoraproject.org ( pagure with pagure-dist-git
wrapper for packaging). Most of the discussion has been around
src.fedoraproject.org, and thats fine, it’s very important to the
project and it’s the thing we really need to decide on.
There has been less discussion about pagure.io. It’s more than “infra
hosting”. It’s:
- a general forge we have provided to anyone who wants to host their
open source software there. ( 3661 projects currently ) - a place we have some project things that are important to the
packaging pipeline ( kickstart files, comps, pungi config, releng
scripts, etc, etc). - some parts of our community use it for ticket trackers, requests.
Things like fesco tickets, council tickets, releng and infra tickets,
etc - Some infra applications are there (things maintained by fedora
infra/releng and some not) like koji, pungi, compose tracker, etc.
In the past the fedora infra policy on applications has been “It is up
to the people doing the work to decide where they want to host the code
for their application”. This has resulted in us having a github area, a
gitlab area and pagure stuff. There are various reasons people have put
things where they have. Some of our developers like/depend on some
github features, or prefer gitlab for some features, etc over pagure.
So, after all that historical pontificating, whats my point? 
I think the pagure.io ‘plan’ is going to largely be decided by what we
decide to do with src.fedoraproject.org. If we keep pagure there, likely
we would keep pagure.io around too. If we migrate it to something else,
and that something is a general forge and we are running our own, we
might stand up a instance of that to replace pagure.io. Otherwise we
might sunset pagure.io at some point way down the road and tell it’s
users to move to another general forge.
As for a ‘infrastructure hosting’ policy, what would that look like?