Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews
GH == Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org writes: GH How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a GH rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? I'm catching up with mail after the weekend and noticed this unusually pointed bit of misinformation which bears correcting. process-git-requests has no choice in the matter. Whatsoever. It creates the branches requested; the master branch comes along regardless. I can't imagine this is remotely a big deal, but being able to differentiate EPEL-only packages does make it possible for process-git-requests to automatically dead.package the branch or to make use of any potential master-branch-less functionality should it appear in the future. - J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:28:15 -0700 Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? I think the idea is that it allows people who wish to see reviews that are EPEL only. So, perhaps they have more interest or desire to review those. ;) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said: On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? I think the idea is that it allows people who wish to see reviews that are EPEL only. So, perhaps they have more interest or desire to review those. ;) Correct. And it gives us something to key off of to possibly change process-git-requests in the future. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews
On 4/29/11 8:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? I think the idea is that it allows people who wish to see reviews that are EPEL only. So, perhaps they have more interest or desire to review those.;) Correct. And it gives us something to key off of to possibly change process-git-requests in the future. It is somewhat difficult, and odd, to create a git repo that does not have a master branch. It would be a little more odd to potentially at some point in the future create the master branch for a package should it find a home within Fedora. There need not be much/any content in the master branch, but there should still be one for each package. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews
On 4/29/2011 9:12, Jesse Keating wrote: It is somewhat difficult, and odd, to create a git repo that does not have a master branch. It would be a little more odd to potentially at some point in the future create the master branch for a package should it find a home within Fedora. As you say, this practice is somewhat unusual, but it is not difficult. It takes but a single easily-scriptable command prior to the first commit to change the name of the initial branch. Since Fedora's repo creation scripts already do an initial commit in every new package repository this should not be difficult to add to that process. Creating a master branch where none existed would primarily be a matter of deciding which existing branch to branch the new master branch from. This part should only be difficult to do programmatically if the desired preexisting branch is not the initial one that the repository's first commit was created on. There need not be much/any content in the master branch, but there should still be one for each package. For the sake of code simplicity, I agree: every repo ought to have a master branch. Having one omnipresent branch lets Fedora's repo management scripts make some very useful assumptions. (Yes, this opinion flies in the face of my previous statements.) ;-) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews
On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
