On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 2010 12:13:33 -0500, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> So in effect, it seems we're saying the same things, except I am using >> REPO_NAME="foo-rebuild" for each rebuild "foo", and you are using >> REPO_NAME="staging" for *all* rebuilds. > > Somehow yes, but the detail is quite important. But a already existing > repo will make things a lot easier. Maybe its worth to manually create a > separate repo but probably not for just a few. We also sometimes upload > packages somewhere to share or let others grab them from our home dirs on > gerolde. Such a repo would simplify this and induce a general work flow for > e.g. rebuilds. > > But still, the main intention is to make testing more usable to get more > feedback and in turn have less bugs in core/extra. > >> This can already be done, the staging dir just needs to be added to the >> server. >> >> It would, however, need to be excluded from rsync if you want that. > > Sure, the implementation of this is a peace of cake: mostly a mkdir and > maybe adding some shortcuts to devtools and dbscripts to have something > like stagingpkg and staging2extra etc.. This makes me wonder, what about the TUs and [community-testing]? The current use of that repo would make it seem sensible to rename it to [community-staging] instead, since it's rare there's anything in there but in-progress rebuilds. Or should there be a pair of [community-testing] and [community-staging]? Sorry about adding complexity to this, as I realize that makes it less likely that it actually gets implemented...
