On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 11:09 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > What we haven't managed to do yet is update the package review > > > process > > > to better account for the distinction, such as by adopting a > > > "COPR > > > first" model, where folks put a package up in COPR with bundled > > > components, and then either keep it there indefinitely, or > > > collaborate > > > with others on the unbundling effort. > > > > Just to be awkward - I kinda found working with COPRs a PITA the > > only > > time I tried it and went back to using my own server space. This of > > course isn't an option for everyone, but it *is* an option for > > some of > > us who are already packaging stuff, and maybe I'm not the only one > > who > > prefers it? :) > > COPR is getting better all the time and I find it pretty usable > these days. > The big hurdle now for actually supporting packaging efforts in it > IMO is lack > of permission controls. Yeah, now I look back at it that was kind of an asshat-y mail. I have no problem with requiring reviews to go through COPR if it winds up being generally beneficial. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
