Re: Fedora and PDC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 2:23 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
<sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The difference is that PDC rpm-mappings API endpoint was result of two
> sources:
>  * Manual per-rpm mappings (overrides) - this is sort of suitable if you
>    have a product with just a couple source packages so it's manageable
>    this way (i.e Ceph case)
>  * Results of compose metadata import - this is what Fedora/RHEL uses
>    because several thousands of source packages are not manageable
>    one-by-one by humans manually.
>
> You could still make a system that would create "PRs" for the generated
> files for second case, but then querying the current state will still be
> a bit tricky. I guess...

Yeah, the fact that we have (at least) two different input and storage
methods there is a lot of complexity. I'm not sure that's a good
design in 2018.

Regardless, you're right, I'm envisioning that we'd have a tool to
generate the data commits and PRs (or just commit + push directly).
PDC had included its own rudimentary form of version control for
auditing and message bus integration. Git's experience is much richer.

- Ken
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux