Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-14 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 18:40 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: > > AW> Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the > AW> primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source > AW> for the

Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-14 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: ZJ> Indeed. I changed the status. (I feels a bit presumptuous to tell ZJ> the FPC when exactly they have to discuss something, but if it's ZJ> that's what it takes, then OK.) trac unfortunately doesn't have any facility for

Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-14 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: AW> Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the AW> primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source AW> for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem AW> when someone

Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-14 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 03:41:52PM +, Mat Booth wrote: > Ticket is still has "need info" status -- if the info is provided, the > status should be set to "discuss at next meeting" Indeed. I changed the status. (I feels a bit presumptuous to tell the FPC when exactly they have to discuss

Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-14 Thread Mat Booth
On 14 February 2017 at 02:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:44:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the > > primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source >

Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-13 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:44:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the > primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source > for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem when > someone (e.g. a

Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file

2017-02-13 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem when someone (e.g. a provenpackager like me...) changes the package directly in dist-git. This is