If you have noticed that the Fedora Badges Backend development efforts have quietened down in the last month and a half, then you’re correct as that indeed happened. I had to briefly step away to finish off the development work for the Pagure Exporter[1] and had been investigating a possible replacement[2] for the Pagure Dist Git going forward.
Unfortunately, it is going to stay that way for a bit longer. That, of course, does not mean that the development should stop. We must not let this momentum halt - not only because of all the progress we have made so far but also because of what we can potentially achieve. I would be available to provide my guidance to help the efforts move forward.
I (with @thunderbirdtr’s express assistance) made sure that the documentation around setting up the development environment and contribution remains (and continues to be) well maintained. We have also provided elevated access for the repositories to contributors to ensure that the progress is not blocked on certain people’s approval.
For now, I recommend someone stepping into my shoes while I am (and will continue to be) available to provide my mentorship and make approvals to fill in the gaps wherever needed. Once the project is prioritized to work on and/or when the stuff that I am keeping myself busy with in my day job decreases, I will be sure to resume leading the efforts.
I get that it is not good news to hear (or share, trust me) but I know that a project like Fedora Badges that forms the foundation of our means to appreciate contributors and incentivize contributions will have no shortage of enthusiastic volunteers. I promise all the support I can to ensure that the contributors do not feel blocked or slowed down.
Thanks for the update, @t0xic0der. Much appreciated.
I take it this is the follow up to @jflory7’s action item from last round table. The meeting minutes are still on my to-do list. I hope to have these ready in the coming days. I will put a link in the minutes to this topic to raise awareness.
As to the current situation, I think it’s regrettable we couldn’t get more people actively engaged while we had the momentum. We discussed that to some extent during last week’s meeting and there are some ideas floating around.
I won’t be able to follow up right away. But I’m certainly going to have a look over on GitLab[1] towards the end of the month and check out where I might be able to help. Thanks for all you and others have done so far.
Which, btw, feels like a barrier. I’m not sure why. But somehow GitLab feels less welcoming then, say, GitHub. It’s probably a mixed bag: the login procedure, the user interface, the project structure. It feels like climbing a mountain for a peek through the curtain. ↩︎
Hey @t0xic0der, thanks for this update on where things are at and setting expectations for the short-term feature. It is disappointing, but sometimes this happens and we will roll with it.
To help me understand better, is this an action item to add more people or have more people already been leveled up? Could you list who the reviewers are? It will help to make sure that anyone who can make decisions and merge things is clearly identified for new contributors.
If we don’t have a group yet, that’s fine, but I want to make sure I have a correct understanding of the current situation.
The way the Badges 2.0 revamp is using GitLab is confusing. I feel like we are in some kind of anti-pattern but I haven’t figured out what an easier way would be. My hunch is that we do not have a single source of truth for people to figure out where things are. There is not a clear, ordered sequence of development milestones that we can point people to.
This is something I think we can fix, but it might require high bandwidth conversations to get key contributors aligned on the workflow and how things should work. This could be an excellent topic for an in-person hackfest in 2024, which we started to discuss in the last roundtable meeting.