On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:27:20PM +0200, Alek Paunov wrote: > On 19.11.2013 16:20, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:06PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:39:50PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > >>>We have to learn fedpkg to do all the magic ;-) Something like > >>> > >>>add remote git tree with exploded tree: > >>> > >>> fedpkg exploded-tree add ssh://git.fedorahosted.org/git/foo.git > >> > >>This is all great, but the problem is that co-maintainers and > >>provenpackagers need to be (automatically if possible) added to the > >>fedorahosted tree. Otherwise there's a big extra step for them if > >>they want to follow the package owner's preferred patching system. > > > >Ideally the GIT SCM request added to bugzilla when reviews are > >approved would have a "Upstream GIT URL" option and would setup > >a clone of this, and create branches for the fedora releases, > >and apply the same permissioning model from dist-git branches > >of the same names. > > > > What about intermediate step: optional "fNN-upstream" branch in > addition to fNN, containing relevant upstream revision as git > submodule (preferably referencing fedorahosted mirror, but initially > also allowing "external" clones)?
I think it would be better to keep the upstream repo separate for sake of size. People who just want to checkout the latest RPM branches don't want to have to pull down 100's of MB, potentially GB, worth of GIT repo, when current Fedora GIT repos are a mere few MB. Only maintainers actively updating patches need that burden. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
