On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:55 AM Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:34 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using > > > > packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) > > > > useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles > > > > that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it > > > > would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the > > > > moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea. > > > > > > When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in > > > your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it > > > shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now. > > > > > > I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going > > > to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your > > > future plans for the git forge? > > > > What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away > > anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host > > source code that packit integration support would be useful for. > > > > Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service. > > Neal, I understand you are frustrated after I read some of your > responses in other threads. I'd appreciate if you didn't use such > strong language when reaching out to me. > > My point with the sentence was that we'd be busy adding GitLab > integration into packit in coming months, tightening our capacity. I > also didn't say anything about pagure.io going away. I was just > interested in the details. > > Actually, pagure support is being added to packit these days (starting > here [1]). So far no one was pushing us hard to add native pagure.io > integration hence it's not present. To this day we've received a bunch > of requests to support GitLab [2] (you're on the thread as well) and > that's it. > > If you have a strong case for having packit working with pagure.io > (doing RPM builds for PRs mainly), please open an issue [3] so we can > track this request. Once [1] is merged, it shouldn't be that difficult > to do such a thing (I expect that pagure.io and git.centos.org use the > same fedmsg payloads though). > > > [1] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/pull/515 > [2] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/249 > [3] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/new > Issue filed: https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/556 I didn't realize nobody had filed an issue for it. I assumed it had already been done as part of getting parity for a Fedora service for projects hosted on Fedora infrastructure. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
