On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 18:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > At least with this _specific_ proposal, I don't see too many issues. > Adding a "sources" namespace to Pagure and setting up a workflow for > that isn't a horrible idea. > > I still feel like my general concerns in original proposal from two > years ago[1] haven't been sufficiently addressed. But, given that you > seem to have a specific idea in mind here, my questions about this > for > the kernel (and others that would opt into this workflow): > > * Are you okay with imposing the same restrictions we have on rpms/*, > modules/*, flatpaks/*, and containers/* for sources/*? That is, no > rewriting history, no branch deletion, no tag deletion, etc. > * Are you okay with blocking the usage of submodules, Git LFS, > Git-Annex, or any other mechanism that allows bypassing our > protections or cannot be replicated from an upstream repo locally? > > > > [1]: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7498 > > I'll dig into[1] tomorrow to see if the existing stuff Kevin mentioned would work for us, but I can say that I'm fine with all those restrictions. - Jeremy _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
