Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 04:45:22PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 12.12.2013 14:42, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 10.12.2013 14:20, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I am at a point where I think it starts to look good, the unit-tests are passing and I seem to be able to do what I want with it. Thus I thought this would be a good time to call for testers and collect bug reports and RFE. The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ [...] So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Actually, are you using some error monitoring? For example the packages [1] application quite often does not work as expected, e.g. today I have clicked on sources tab and nothing happens, just later I was able to get 500 error. I am too lazy to investigate and report such issues, so I am wondering, if you are going proactively monitor such issues in pkgdb2. Well pkgdb2 and packages are quite different from a technology point of view, but this might answer your question: http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/job/PackageDB2/ I was not speaking about CI, but about case when something wrong happens to users. It will probably generate exception in your application, so if you are notified about such errors? That is something we have been thinking about for some time but we have nothing in place at the moment. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On 12/12/2013 04:19 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 17:18 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: The idea behind is: you have some application with an issue/error. You'll do rpm -qf filename and will get a package name, not necessarily the source package name. When filing a bug against a package, you'll need to know the source package name. rpm -qi gives you the source package. So, why do we hide it this way? How is a new user or a GUI-only person able to find the right package to file a bug against? A nasty person might even say: this is by purpose ;-) Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 09:02 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: On 12/12/2013 04:19 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 17:18 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: The idea behind is: you have some application with an issue/error. You'll do rpm -qf filename and will get a package name, not necessarily the source package name. When filing a bug against a package, you'll need to know the source package name. rpm -qi gives you the source package. So, why do we hide it this way? How is a new user or a GUI-only person Well, you were talking about someone who had just used rpm -qf, so in that context rpm -qi made a lot of sense. able to find the right package to file a bug against? A nasty person might even say: this is by purpose ;-) As far as I know, pkgdb is not targeted at end users but at package maintainers (as it handles the ACLs on packages). /packages is more targeted at users, and it does show what is the base package for a given subpackage. For example: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/libcangjie-devel In case you miss the Subpackage of XXX, you can just click on the Bugzilla link, which will open a bug against the proper base package. You could argue that the two apps should be only one, but that's a different discussion. (and the people actually doing the work to implement and maintain those apps feel that it's better to separate them) -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On 12/12/2013 09:15 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: How is a new user or a GUI-only person Well, you were talking about someone who had just used rpm -qf, so in that context rpm -qi made a lot of sense. Yes, you're right, in that context, it makes sense. For example: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/libcangjie-devel In case you miss the Subpackage of XXX, you can just click on the Bugzilla link, which will open a bug against the proper base package. OK; that looks better; I didn't knew that, so we might promote it a bit more? Thanks! Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Dne 10.12.2013 14:20, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I am at a point where I think it starts to look good, the unit-tests are passing and I seem to be able to do what I want with it. Thus I thought this would be a good time to call for testers and collect bug reports and RFE. The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ [...] So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Pierre Actually, are you using some error monitoring? For example the packages [1] application quite often does not work as expected, e.g. today I have clicked on sources tab and nothing happens, just later I was able to get 500 error. I am too lazy to investigate and report such issues, so I am wondering, if you are going proactively monitor such issues in pkgdb2. Vít [1] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 10.12.2013 14:20, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I am at a point where I think it starts to look good, the unit-tests are passing and I seem to be able to do what I want with it. Thus I thought this would be a good time to call for testers and collect bug reports and RFE. The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ [...] So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Actually, are you using some error monitoring? For example the packages [1] application quite often does not work as expected, e.g. today I have clicked on sources tab and nothing happens, just later I was able to get 500 error. I am too lazy to investigate and report such issues, so I am wondering, if you are going proactively monitor such issues in pkgdb2. Well pkgdb2 and packages are quite different from a technology point of view, but this might answer your question: http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/job/PackageDB2/ :) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On 13 November 2013 16:59, Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:57:38PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:52:27 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ That page says Version 1.0.0 at the top and 0.1.0 at the bottom, and you refer to it as pkgdb2. - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Why not call it Bugzilla assignee then? Because I do not want us to be linked to a specific bug tracker. Bugee? -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Dne 12.12.2013 14:42, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 10.12.2013 14:20, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I am at a point where I think it starts to look good, the unit-tests are passing and I seem to be able to do what I want with it. Thus I thought this would be a good time to call for testers and collect bug reports and RFE. The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ [...] So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Actually, are you using some error monitoring? For example the packages [1] application quite often does not work as expected, e.g. today I have clicked on sources tab and nothing happens, just later I was able to get 500 error. I am too lazy to investigate and report such issues, so I am wondering, if you are going proactively monitor such issues in pkgdb2. Well pkgdb2 and packages are quite different from a technology point of view, but this might answer your question: http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/job/PackageDB2/ :) Pierre I was not speaking about CI, but about case when something wrong happens to users. It will probably generate exception in your application, so if you are notified about such errors? Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:52:58PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: On 12/10/2013 02:20 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Wow, looks great in general. Thanks I'd love to see a feature, where it's possible to search for sub-packages as well. It would make many things easier. hm, the problem here is that pkgdb per definition does not know about sub-packages. What is the idea behing? Knowing the ACL on a specific sub-package or knowing generic information about a specific sub-package? In the first case, I don't know yet how to handle it, in the second case I believe /packages might be a better application for this: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages (Note the link from packages to pkgdb even on a sub-package page: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/qt-devel ) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
* Dan Mashal [10/12/2013 11:29] : Can we get a my packages button? Or am I blind and not seeing one? There's a Restrict to owner: form where you can enter your FAS username. Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 09:55 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: * Dan Mashal [10/12/2013 11:29] : Can we get a my packages button? Or am I blind and not seeing one? There's a Restrict to owner: form where you can enter your FAS username. Also works if you just click on your nick on the top right corner. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On 12/11/2013 09:19 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:52:58PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: On 12/10/2013 02:20 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Wow, looks great in general. Thanks I'd love to see a feature, where it's possible to search for sub-packages as well. It would make many things easier. hm, the problem here is that pkgdb per definition does not know about sub-packages. What is the idea behing? Knowing the ACL on a specific sub-package or knowing generic information about a specific sub-package? The idea behind is: you have some application with an issue/error. You'll do rpm -qf filename and will get a package name, not necessarily the source package name. When filing a bug against a package, you'll need to know the source package name. Since packages should know their sub-packages, this would be easiest to link them both from here. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 17:18 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: The idea behind is: you have some application with an issue/error. You'll do rpm -qf filename and will get a package name, not necessarily the source package name. When filing a bug against a package, you'll need to know the source package name. rpm -qi gives you the source package. -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I am at a point where I think it starts to look good, the unit-tests are passing and I seem to be able to do what I want with it. Thus I thought this would be a good time to call for testers and collect bug reports and RFE. The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ [...] So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I am at a point where I think it starts to look good, the unit-tests are passing and I seem to be able to do what I want with it. Thus I thought this would be a good time to call for testers and collect bug reports and RFE. The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ [...] So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Can we get a my packages button? Or am I blind and not seeing one? Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On 12/10/2013 02:20 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: Just a heads-up, christmas holidays are coming our way and our agenda is to push pkgdb2 in production as soon as possible after the release of F20. This means that if you want to poke at it, if you find bugs or have any RFE you should really do this as early as possible so that there is time to fix/improve before we release. Wow, looks great in general. I'd love to see a feature, where it's possible to search for sub-packages as well. It would make many things easier. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Dne 24.11.2013 00:34, Dennis Gilmore napsal(a): There is pros and cons of each. Agreed. And therefore forcing someone to use one of them or cricitice someone for having Fedora project on Github is something I don't like. Unless it's a proper policy and if such policy is proposed I would be against it. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Till Maas wrote: It is possible, but I have to agree that github is more convenient/efficient than the workflow you describe. Huh? The export patches, attach to issue tracker workflow allows me to work with a normal local clone. The GitHub pull request workflow forces me to create a fork on GitHub and push my clone there (and for some projects, users who don't know how GitHub works will most likely attempt to use those forks, even though they aren't actually meant to be used other than as a source for pull requests; for pkgdb2, this is probably not an issue though ;-) ), then juggling with the 2 different upstreams (the true upstream and the clone it forced me to create). And GitHub tries to enforce that broken workflow in all silly ways possible. For example, their issue tracker arbitrarily only accepts image (picture) files as file uploads, no patches (nor even any other non-image content, e.g. log files). It is also not possible to file a pull request from anything other than a repo located on GitHub, you cannot even use a clone hosted elsewhere, let alone submit an exported patch (the way ReviewBoard, used e.g. on reviewboard.kde.org, works, a much better patch review interface, which I guess would be easy to set up on Fedora Hosted if maintainers think the issue tracker is not good enough). So from the patch submitter's point of view, GitHub is much worse! And from the maintainer's point of view, I don't see what's wrong with git am and git push either. Those are normal git commands you can issue on the command line, or if (like me) you prefer point-and-click UIs, you can apply the patch with qgit and push it with git-cola. (By the way, don't ask me why git-cola doesn't have a menu entry for git am, or why qgit doesn't support even basic repository manipulation such as git push. At least I can fire up qgit from git-cola, having it set up as the history viewer.) So you can just use the same tools you use for your own development, you don't have to go through some crappy proprietary web interface. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 05:34:19PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: By using github you are also eliminating the possibility of some people to contribute to your project. I personally won't create an account on github. Just because I believe that open projects should be hosted on open platforms. I'd rather us work out a way to have an open patch submission and review process. I accept patches coming in any forms, email, fpaste, pull-request via github, git request-pull from git itself... If an upstream only accepts patches coming from the github pull-request mechanism then I would agree with you, but the fact that you don't want to create an account on github is not a reason to not contribute on a project. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: You're forgeting, patch/code reviews, Export patch from git, attach to new issue in the bug tracker; as the maintainer, apply it with git am and push it; where's the problem? possibility to close or refer to a ticket from the git commit, Referring just works in Trac (use '#' + ticket number, it will create a link in Trac's display of the commit message). the possibility to easily follow a project and be informed of its changes The Trac timeline has an RSS feed. Anyway, did you see the link in the footer? The one that says 'pkgdb'? But the pkgdb2 code is not in there, is it? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:57:25PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: You're forgeting, patch/code reviews, Export patch from git, attach to new issue in the bug tracker; as the maintainer, apply it with git am and push it; where's the problem? It is possible, but I have to agree that github is more convenient/efficient than the workflow you describe. possibility to close or refer to a ticket from the git commit, Referring just works in Trac (use '#' + ticket number, it will create a link in Trac's display of the commit message). Will it add a notification in the issue tracker? Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:57:25PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: You're forgeting, patch/code reviews, Export patch from git, attach to new issue in the bug tracker; as the maintainer, apply it with git am and push it; where's the problem? possibility to close or refer to a ticket from the git commit, Referring just works in Trac (use '#' + ticket number, it will create a link in Trac's display of the commit message). the possibility to easily follow a project and be informed of its changes The Trac timeline has an RSS feed. Anyway, did you see the link in the footer? The one that says 'pkgdb'? But the pkgdb2 code is not in there, is it? And pkgdb2 is in prod? And your conclusions of the fact that this link is there are? Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:57:25PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: You're forgeting, patch/code reviews, Export patch from git, attach to new issue in the bug tracker; as the maintainer, apply it with git am and push it; where's the problem? It is possible, but I have to agree that github is more convenient/efficient than the workflow you describe. possibility to close or refer to a ticket from the git commit, Referring just works in Trac (use '#' + ticket number, it will create a link in Trac's display of the commit message). Will it add a notification in the issue tracker? If the proper git hooks and trac settings are enabled, it is in theory possible. I didn't manage to get it to work on the fedocal project when I looked at it. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:34:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: I really don't see what is missing there, apart from missing automation for the one-time creation process. Something I just noticed: - Github allows to reply to ticket notifications via email instead of requiring to change to a browser and to re-login there. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
By using github you are also eliminating the possibility of some people to contribute to your project. I personally won't create an account on github. Just because I believe that open projects should be hosted on open platforms. I'd rather us work out a way to have an open patch submission and review process. There is pros and cons of each. Dennis Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:34:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: The reason is simple. Fedorahosted lacks features, is unplesant and need byrocracy even to create a repository. Creating a repository is actually the only time bureaucracy is required. Giving write permissions just works over FAS. (There's a FAS group for every repository that is created, the developer only needs to request group membership through FAS and you can approve it, all self-service in FAS.) Clones, commits, pushes etc. are plain git (or SVN or whatever you chose! Fedorahosted is much more flexible than GitHub there) just as on GitHub or anywhere else. A Trac site is automatically created along with the repository if requested (you're expected to say in the repository request whether you want Trac or not, normally you should always say yes), it has bug trackers which work with FAS accounts (and Trac's issue tracker is no worse than GitHub's, they're actually very similar), a repository browser, and a wiki that you can edit (no bureaucracy). You also get a directory for file releases below https://fedorahosted.org/releases/ that accepts SCP uploads. I really don't see what is missing there, apart from missing automation for the one-time creation process. You're forgeting, patch/code reviews, possibility to close or refer to a ticket from the git commit, the possibility to easily follow a project and be informed of its changes (yes, I know, you can create mailing list and have all the commits and action from the trac be sent to said list, I already do this for fedocal) and probably some more feature I'm forgetting. Anyway, did you see the link in the footer? The one that says 'pkgdb'? Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Miro Hrončok wrote: The reason is simple. Fedorahosted lacks features, is unplesant and need byrocracy even to create a repository. Creating a repository is actually the only time bureaucracy is required. Giving write permissions just works over FAS. (There's a FAS group for every repository that is created, the developer only needs to request group membership through FAS and you can approve it, all self-service in FAS.) Clones, commits, pushes etc. are plain git (or SVN or whatever you chose! Fedorahosted is much more flexible than GitHub there) just as on GitHub or anywhere else. A Trac site is automatically created along with the repository if requested (you're expected to say in the repository request whether you want Trac or not, normally you should always say yes), it has bug trackers which work with FAS accounts (and Trac's issue tracker is no worse than GitHub's, they're actually very similar), a repository browser, and a wiki that you can edit (no bureaucracy). You also get a directory for file releases below https://fedorahosted.org/releases/ that accepts SCP uploads. I really don't see what is missing there, apart from missing automation for the one-time creation process. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:34:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: The reason is simple. Fedorahosted lacks features, is unplesant and need byrocracy even to create a repository. Creating a repository is actually the only time bureaucracy is required. Giving write permissions just works over FAS. (There's a FAS group for every repository that is created, the developer only needs to request group membership through FAS and you can approve it, all self-service in FAS.) Clones, commits, pushes etc. are plain git (or SVN or whatever you chose! Fedorahosted is much more flexible than GitHub there) just as on GitHub or anywhere else. A Trac site is automatically created along with the repository if requested (you're expected to say in the repository request whether you want Trac or not, normally you should always say yes), it has bug trackers which work with FAS accounts (and Trac's issue tracker is no worse than GitHub's, they're actually very similar), a repository browser, and a wiki that you can edit (no bureaucracy). You also get a directory for file releases below https://fedorahosted.org/releases/ that accepts SCP uploads. I really don't see what is missing there, apart from missing automation for the one-time creation process. You're forgeting, patch/code reviews, possibility to close or refer to a ticket from the git commit, the possibility to easily follow a project and be informed of its changes (yes, I know, you can create mailing list and have all the commits and action from the trac be sent to said list, I already do this for fedocal) and probably some more feature I'm forgetting. Anyway, did you see the link in the footer? The one that says 'pkgdb'? Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:19:35AM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:50:42AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: One thing which is probably an issue with the import process: I looked at the package kdelibs-experimental which has been retired, as seen on pkgdb1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kdelibs-experimental (see Status=Deprecated). Yet in pkgdb2 it shows up as a regular orphan: http://209.132.184.188/package/kdelibs-experimental/ and offers me to retire it (which it already is) or pick it up. Should I file a ticket for that on GitHub? The question is more likely, when did it get retired? As in: It contains the data from pkgdb1 from about a month ago. I have on my todo to update the database to a more recent version, I'll make sure to check the status of kdelibs-experimental then. I have since updated the database and it turned out to be really a bug in pkgdb2 which I fixed: http://209.132.184.188/package/kdelibs-experimental Best regards, Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On 11/13/2013 02:52 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: Dear all, So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ Hey, that looks great! I just tried to file an RFE against it, sadly github just returns a 404. My idea was that it makes sense for end users to search for packages and sub-packages as well. This would make reporting bugs against sub-packages way easier, because one could find that information way easier. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:50:42AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: One thing which is probably an issue with the import process: I looked at the package kdelibs-experimental which has been retired, as seen on pkgdb1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kdelibs-experimental (see Status=Deprecated). Yet in pkgdb2 it shows up as a regular orphan: http://209.132.184.188/package/kdelibs-experimental/ and offers me to retire it (which it already is) or pick it up. Should I file a ticket for that on GitHub? The question is more likely, when did it get retired? As in: It contains the data from pkgdb1 from about a month ago. I have on my todo to update the database to a more recent version, I'll make sure to check the status of kdelibs-experimental then. Thanks for the report! Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Dne 16.11.2013 02:47, Kevin Kofler napsal(a): But this is NOT an UPSTREAM project, it is a project developed specifically for Fedora by Fedora people. I see no valid reason whatsoever this is being developed on third-party infrastructure. Of course, we cannot force the whole distro to be developed on fedorahosted (not even Ubuntu can do that with Launchpad), but for our custom infrastructure code, it would make everyone's lives easier. I am not developer of pkgdb2 but if I would, I would also choose github over fedorahosted. The reason is simple. Fedorahosted lacks features, is unplesant and need byrocracy even to create a repository. I've already discussed that on devel long time ago and I was told that we do not want to make fedorahosted more like github -- most of you didn't even care. But unless we do, don't except the developers to use it if it's such a pain compared to github. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-May/183573.html From the ideological and polictal side, of course: Using github over fedorahosted is bad. From the practival part it's oposite. I admire any Fedora dev who cooses fedorahosted, I really do. It's very nice of them. But please do not insist on it, while we lacks the level of user experience that github has. We aren't even close. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Maybe an RFE:
pkgdb2 should be able to scratch the %{summary} in RPM specfile as the
short summary of the package automatically, especially when some
packages change their summary in the spec.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ Why is this on GitHub and not on fedorahosted? Having this on fedorahosted would allow us to file bugs using our existing Fedora accounts. It would also make you independent of third-party proprietary (sure, they use git, but everything else is proprietary!) infrastructure. Fedora stuff should really be developed on Fedora infrastructure! One thing which is probably an issue with the import process: I looked at the package kdelibs-experimental which has been retired, as seen on pkgdb1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kdelibs-experimental (see Status=Deprecated). Yet in pkgdb2 it shows up as a regular orphan: http://209.132.184.188/package/kdelibs-experimental/ and offers me to retire it (which it already is) or pick it up. Should I file a ticket for that on GitHub? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:50:42 +0100 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ Why is this on GitHub and not on fedorahosted? Having this on fedorahosted would allow us to file bugs using our existing Fedora accounts. It would also make you independent of third-party proprietary (sure, they use git, but everything else is proprietary!) infrastructure. Fedora stuff should really be developed on Fedora infrastructure! We discussed this a few years ago! We decided that it was not up to us to dictate what hosting upstream projects use, and have left it up to developers of those projects. We have talked about getting some kind of syncing setup so we have things also at fedorahosted for those projects that desire it, but we don't have that in place currently. It is sad that github doesn't support openid. ;( One thing which is probably an issue with the import process: I looked at the package kdelibs-experimental which has been retired, as seen on pkgdb1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kdelibs-experimental (see Status=Deprecated). Yet in pkgdb2 it shows up as a regular orphan: http://209.132.184.188/package/kdelibs-experimental/ and offers me to retire it (which it already is) or pick it up. Should I file a ticket for that on GitHub? Yes, if you can, or possibly wait and see if Pierre can just look into the issue now that you have noted it. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Koji also has a notion of the owner of a package. It treats owners specially in at least two ways: 1. The owner of a package is sent e-mails for all actions in the buildsystem regarding packages they own, regardless of who initiated them. 2. Only the owner of a package is permitted to tag or untag all builds for that package. Co-maintainers may only tag or untag builds they submitted. #1 can hopefully be fixed by the famed fedmsg-e-mail gateway, so it can probably be safely ignored. #2, not so much. You rarely need to manually mess around with koji tags, but when you do need it, you *really* need it. ;-) Do you all plan to fix koji to permit all comaintainers to perform tag operations on a package as part of enabling SIG maintainership? If not, the point of contact terminology wouldn't be very accurate. -T.C. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:07:41 -0700 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com escribió: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Koji also has a notion of the owner of a package. It treats owners specially in at least two ways: 1. The owner of a package is sent e-mails for all actions in the buildsystem regarding packages they own, regardless of who initiated them. True. 2. Only the owner of a package is permitted to tag or untag all builds for that package. Co-maintainers may only tag or untag builds they submitted. Not at all true. Any one can tag a build into an unlocked tag such as f20-updates-candidate tags such as f20-updates-testing are protected and can only be tagged into by an admin in koji. Koji has no concept of acls, It doesn't know about co-maintainers or treat them any differently. #1 can hopefully be fixed by the famed fedmsg-e-mail gateway, so it can probably be safely ignored. #2, not so much. You rarely need to manually mess around with koji tags, but when you do need it, you *really* need it. ;-) Do you all plan to fix koji to permit all comaintainers to perform tag operations on a package as part of enabling SIG maintainership? If not, the point of contact terminology wouldn't be very accurate. there is actually nothing to change here. Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJShsrZAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRtBoP/A8UxS1clKDTR6LJN3cY1Tca pWtIGx/EfGitNjZMimy3jeC6XMq2gq6b+9ZywsezDJ7zt0+GreW7niPlneuhHL9G 66h50TsDRaKfFUM6AT3G/MkLyr5nvUwxJZ/HQjDVtJo6yZqUin6wOLLevtk7xOuq jpqiVxJTCbmLIG3FEfH+agkgvE6APAuni6JoFXB0xE7zy7QboY95AwGnWRn3YYp1 QG+9ZzdQd8lyzv3zReNnErdzv1vXwgmOC3Llcjrtq2hbMOw9v9tJKmdSjgoUPoUz zSNvqQo1i7xX+8iujSnLf9Z1hz5p+7q9Rk7PFEnCxYGp4gL/TeTAlvswm2uMKgkx /4ea8rHBHcwHeeoYbbC/MrIMzsc4tUe5gXflSdUCd2G4gAzMiDvWvY0rYVPW3JT+ 0esn7nnC7DR2dhJsFyon3CHrA7jv//hIASjcnBp9ZK1Gt3dalb9mNYyWCX++o8MX qUo24IPFP6ZCb3TOpuCtvD4MRu/soMjCwn/XXg+obv128K5d6l5KYGOlExHh1s50 OiHnzELDMuXvokFEVA0YU8R+vo9FuVY+bSbXm2IgNuKcJEqUqK7xA46Ez++XFsuo 6vfR8UzR4GZvQLA5+iNmgxiJVTGIAVIxNvbaR3oEpk0cet5jjgaq76VCqgWXOLnd JKsmmxhYaT+NBZqxp2fS =H9+L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Kevin Fenzi wrote: We discussed this a few years ago! We decided that it was not up to us to dictate what hosting upstream projects use, and have left it up to developers of those projects. But this is NOT an UPSTREAM project, it is a project developed specifically for Fedora by Fedora people. I see no valid reason whatsoever this is being developed on third-party infrastructure. Of course, we cannot force the whole distro to be developed on fedorahosted (not even Ubuntu can do that with Launchpad), but for our custom infrastructure code, it would make everyone's lives easier. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote: Not at all true. Any one can tag a build into an unlocked tag such as f20-updates-candidate tags such as f20-updates-testing are protected and can only be tagged into by an admin in koji. Koji has no concept of acls, It doesn't know about co-maintainers or treat them any differently. Weird, I couldn't make koji untag a package from rawhide once and had to bug the owner to do so. I thought this was why, but I guess it was just PEBKAC. ;-) Sorry for the noise. -T.C. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Why this new terminology? I think it'll just lead to confusion, since the new term is hard to use in casual conversation (I'm the point of contact on x in Fedora feels awkward compared I'm the owner of x in Fedora) and people will probably stick to the old one. Maybe even using maintainer + co-maintainer might be better, because in normal circumstances who is the owner and who is the co-maintainer matters only to the people involved in the package, and is irrelevant for most uses. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 03:20:30PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Why this new terminology? I think it'll just lead to confusion, since the new term is hard to use in casual conversation (I'm the point of contact on x in Fedora feels awkward compared I'm the owner of x in Fedora) and people will probably stick to the old one. Maybe Well, you can always use maintainer instead of owner ;-) even using maintainer + co-maintainer might be better, because in normal circumstances who is the owner and who is the co-maintainer matters only to the people involved in the package, and is irrelevant for most uses. The idea is that we do not have two levels of maintainers anymore. We are all maintainers, just one of them has accepted the task of being the person to contact for bug reports. What I would like to see is the disappearance of post/email saying why did XYZ touch *my* package?. Now it's not your package anymore, it's a package you maintain, you do not own it. I do realize the change in terminology on pkgdb might not stop these emails but I would like to try. In theory, this might also help collaboration as it presents package maintainance as a shared task which is something that we always want to improve. I hope this makes sense, Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
Dne 13.11.2013 14:52, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ Do I get it right that I can play with ACLs and it will not be pushed to real Fedora infrastructure? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:05:10PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: Dne 13.11.2013 14:52, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE feel free to note them at: https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ Do I get it right that I can play with ACLs and it will not be pushed to real Fedora infrastructure? You do, this is only a testing instance, everything stays on this machine and when we do the move from pkgdb1 to pkgdb2 we'll re-convert the most recent pkgdb1 database. Play as much as you like :) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:52:27 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ That page says Version 1.0.0 at the top and 0.1.0 at the bottom, and you refer to it as pkgdb2. - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Why not call it Bugzilla assignee then? Point of contact is misleading. Other maintainers may acquire the watchbugzilla access and may be contacted, too. It's just a limitation of bugzilla that there can only be a single default assignee. What will happen to the SRPM-owner@ email alias? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:57:38PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:52:27 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: The development instance of pkgdb2 is at: http://209.132.184.188/ That page says Version 1.0.0 at the top and 0.1.0 at the bottom, and you refer to it as pkgdb2. - The idea of owner of a package disapear. There are only maintainers on which one of them appears to be the dedicated point of contact for this package (ie: the person that gets the bugs in bugzilla). Why not call it Bugzilla assignee then? Because I do not want us to be linked to a specific bug tracker. Point of contact is misleading. Other maintainers may acquire the watchbugzilla access and may be contacted, too. It's just a limitation of bugzilla that there can only be a single default assignee. Agree on the second part (limitation of bugzilla), but watchbugzilla basically puts you on the cc list of the bug report while being the point of contact actually assigns the bug to you. If we ever get to a place/time where tickets can be assigned to multiple people, then I guess the notion of 'point of contact' will just vanish and we will be able to assign tickets to all the maintainers of the package. What will happen to the SRPM-owner@ email alias? Currently I believe it sends email to all the users any ACL on the package. At the moment we didn't plan on making any changes so it should work just the same. There has been some thoughts about changing this with maybe two aliases: - SRPM-maintainers@fp.o to go to all people having 'commmit' ACL on the package - SRPM-watchers@fp.o to go to all people with an ACL (whatever the ACL) on the package But nothing planned/decided/fixed in stone. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
