@pcreech, +1 to all this. Let us know when we can help move/renamed repos (etc) in the Pulp org. I think both @mhrivnak and I have the org level perms.
@ichimonji10: I wrote a story for us to create a packaging guide here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3092 On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Audet <[email protected]> wrote: > > The goal here is to move release engineering content out of the project > repos and into something purpose built for release engineering, decoupling > the rpm generation process from the python codebase while also helping aid > in the consumption of pulp bits for various downstream projects. > > What's this? Loose coupling? Single responsibility principle? Say no more! > I'm on board. > > More seriously, though, I would love to see the level of complexity > surrounding Pulp's release engineering reduced. If I was to try packaging > up Pulp for distribution on some other Linux distribution as in independent > third party, I'd quickly feel overwhelmed by how the various bits and > pieces are spread across all of the pulp and pulp_* repos, > pulp/pulp_packaging, pulp/packaging (and all of its branches!), etc. And I > say this as someone who's been around the product full-time for a couple > years now. This proposal seems sane, it targets those concerns, and it > comes from someone who's highly qualified. If QE needs to do anything, say > so. > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
