On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 15:18 -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: > If you have been involved in any of our SIGs, now or in the past - or, > indeed, if you'd like to be in the future - I'd like to hear from you. > > I was going to do a formal survey, but I find I need a baseline - I > don't even know what questions to ask. > > I'd like to hear what you love and what you hate about the SIG process. > What you would like to see done differently. What features/services > you'd like to see added, and which we could drop. The main issues I've hit so far are things around the developer experience on git.centos.org and CBS. Notably: - the lack of a working PR workflow: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/228 - the way the lookaside works: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/259 - hard to discover clone URLs: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/245 - support for modularity in CBS: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/294 None of these are showstoppers, but they are definitely roadblocks. The PR workflow in particular is problematic -- right now we rely on SIG members pushing directly to the repos, which makes code review difficult. It's also a blocker for external contribution (as, though one can technically put up a PR, there is no way to actually merge it). I would love to have something closer to the workflow in Fedora here, specifically: - allow SIG members to review and merge PRs onto their branch - kick off scratch builds on PRs to get signal The other thing I would love is a way for SIGs to publish structured documentation on docs.centos.org, akin to the "quick docs" model that Fedora uses. Cheers Davide