On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:55:06AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:31:58AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-05 17:08:39)
New procedure
=
* packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
* reviewer sets the
Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-08 11:55:06)
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:31:58AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-05 17:08:39)
New procedure
=
* packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
* reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
Quoting Christopher (2014-09-08 21:35:23)
It'd be great if the fedpkg tool could do some of this. For example, fedpkg
could create git repos locally, from a template and a few questions, for
new packages, which could be pushed somewhere for review (usually GitHub,
I'd imagine). It could even
On 09/05/2014 05:08 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
In the last months, Till and I together with infrastructure and
release-engineering have been thinking and working on how we could improve the
current workflow for new package and new branch.
To give you an idea, this is the current
Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote:
* packager creates the scm-request and set fedora-cvs flag to ?
I find this step counter intuitive. I accidentally set it to '+' rather than
'?' and then was confused about why things weren't progressing. Can it be
split into two flags? On
Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-05 17:08:39)
New procedure
=
* packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
* reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
* reviewer does the review
* reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to +
* packager goes to pkgdb2 to request new package
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:15:33AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote:
* packager creates the scm-request and set fedora-cvs flag to ?
I find this step counter intuitive. I accidentally set it to '+' rather than
'?' and then was confused about why
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:31:58AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-05 17:08:39)
New procedure
=
* packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
* reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
* reviewer does the review
* reviewer sets the
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 05:23:15AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I think the only safe way is to create an empty branch and not to populate
it, because there are many constraints to be considered before a package can
My proposal is to point new branches to the first commit in the master
branch
On 09/08/2014 06:12 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 05:23:15AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I think the only safe way is to create an empty branch and not to populate
it, because there are many constraints to be considered before a package can
My proposal is to point new
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/08/2014 06:12 PM, Till Maas wrote:
This is also what is done initially, when a new
repo is set up. Empty branches, i.e. only the ACL but no commit in the
branch might lead to maintainers accidentally creating the wrong
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/08/2014 06:12 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 05:23:15AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I think the only safe way is to create an empty branch and not to populate
it, because there are many constraints to be
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com wrote:
Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-05 17:08:39)
New procedure
=
* packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
* reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
* reviewer does the review
* reviewer sets
On 09/06/2014 09:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/06/2014 03:09 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:52:52AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/05/2014 05:08 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
I wonder if we should rather create an empty branch and let the
packager merge
the
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:35:45PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
2014-09-05 17:08 GMT+02:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr:
Dear all,
In the last months, Till and I together with infrastructure and
release-engineering have been thinking and working on how we could improve
the
current
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:12:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 05:08:39PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
In the last months, Till and I together with infrastructure and
release-engineering have been thinking and working on how we could
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:52:52AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/05/2014 05:08 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
* packager requests new branch in pkgdb (2 clicks)
= requests added to the scm admin queue
* cvsadmin checks the request/package (check if package exists in the RHEL
for
On 09/06/2014 03:09 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:52:52AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/05/2014 05:08 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
* cvsadmin approves the creation of the new branch in pkgdb
= branch creation broadcasted on fedmsg
* git adjusted
2014-09-05 17:08 GMT+02:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr:
Dear all,
In the last months, Till and I together with infrastructure and
release-engineering have been thinking and working on how we could improve the
current workflow for new package and new branch.
To give you an idea,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 05:08:39PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
In the last months, Till and I together with infrastructure and
release-engineering have been thinking and working on how we could improve the
current workflow for new package and new branch.
To give you an
On 09/05/2014 05:08 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
* packager requests new branch in pkgdb (2 clicks)
= requests added to the scm admin queue
* cvsadmin checks the request/package (check if package exists in the RHEL for
EPEL branch request - check if the user is a packager done in
21 matches
Mail list logo
