Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file
On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 18:40 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamsonwrites: > > 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 (e.g. a provenpackager like me...) changes the package > AW> directly in dist-git. > > But, uh, how does rel-eng do it? Or do these maintainers all yell at > rel-eng after every mass rebuild? Yes, more or less. The good ones notice that the mass rebuild happened and merge the change back. The bad ones just push back over the top of the mass rebuild and mess stuff up. > There are packages where people might want to request communication > before people do work on the package. Those packages might be > especially complex or have special bootstrapping requirements or a > delicate dependency chain. That I can understand. The spec file in > Fedora git not being "canonical", though, is simply not a valid reason. > For Fedora's workflow, which involves a community of package maintainers > who expect to be able to make use of the Fedora's infrastructure and > tools, there can be no possible alternate canonical location for the > spec. This is more or less my opinion, but there are those who don't agree and have some kind of reason (such as using the same spec file to do package builds in some other place, or wanting to maintain the spec file for a tool alongside its source so they can easily do test package builds as part of the tool's unit tests, etc.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmekwrites: 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 auto-moving things back from the needinfo status like bugzilla does, so occasionally things get missed. Trac will very soon be irrelevant for FPC-related things anyway, but of course pagure doesn't really even have a concept of "needinfo" at this point so we'll need to do something else. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file
> "AW" == Adam Williamsonwrites: 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 (e.g. a provenpackager like me...) changes the package AW> directly in dist-git. But, uh, how does rel-eng do it? Or do these maintainers all yell at rel-eng after every mass rebuild? There are packages where people might want to request communication before people do work on the package. Those packages might be especially complex or have special bootstrapping requirements or a delicate dependency chain. That I can understand. The spec file in Fedora git not being "canonical", though, is simply not a valid reason. For Fedora's workflow, which involves a community of package maintainers who expect to be able to make use of the Fedora's infrastructure and tools, there can be no possible alternate canonical location for the spec. Someone who really, really wants to maintain a package in such a fashion must be prepared to merge back every commit made to the Fedora package. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file
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 something, but if it's that's what it takes, then OK.) Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file
On 14 February 2017 at 02:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmekwrote: > 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 provenpackager like me...) changes the package directly > > in dist-git. > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/613 > It's seems to be going nowhere. > > > This is at least 50% my fault for not trying to check in before > > changing the package > It'd help if there was a standard way to mark such things. > > Zbyszek > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Ticket is still has "need info" status -- if the info is provided, the status should be set to "discuss at next meeting" -- Mat Booth http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Spec files maintained in external source control: *please* mention this in the spec file
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 provenpackager like me...) changes the package directly > in dist-git. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/613 It's seems to be going nowhere. > This is at least 50% my fault for not trying to check in before > changing the package It'd help if there was a standard way to mark such things. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org