On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:04:38PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:18:43AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > This is likely also https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/4022 > > Perhaps I should close that one UPSTREAM? > > (I have no idea if it still needs fixing) > > Nah that's bug in our git hook that is in ansible. > > There are two ways to go about it: > - Announce git branch that are removed > - Don't > (on pagure I took the second approach). > > If we want to take the first approach, we'll need to adjust > fedmsg_meta_fedora_infra for a new topic. > > I can take this one, any preferred solution? I don't have a preference on which route you take, Pierre. But, this brings up a separate, new issue: we did a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is that when Mike Bonnet wrote the dist-git message hook for Red Hat's dist-git, we did our best to copy the message format published by the Fedora hook. The goal here is that we can now write message consumers that respond to either Fedora dist-git messages or RH dist-git messages.. and they'll just work (fingers crossed). We can share more infrastructure code! The bad thing is that we copied the code for the dist-git hook and rewrote it to use the internal message bus tech (my bad). So now, if you add a new message type (deleting a branch) we won't inherit that automatically over on the RH side. We'll have to keep updating our hook every time you update yours. Worse, you may introduce a change that we never notice, and then we'll be weirdly out of sync. Obviously, neither of us is obligated to stay in sync with the other, but it would be nice to share common message formats. Towards that end, I figured I should just let you all know what we're doing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
