On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:19:15 -0400 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:35:00PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Another alternate here is that we could make taskotron a 'namespace' > > like currently rpms/ and docker/ are. Then we would have > > perhaps: /taskotron/rpms/foobar/ as the top level and all the rest > > is the same. This would get us a seperate pkgdb entry for the > > taskotron part of things (ie, it could have different maintainers, > > people allowed to commit, etc). That would add to complexity > > however. > > How much complexity in terms of ongoing maintenance? I think having > different committers is a big plus. The big downside — other than > complexity — is that the in-package-dist-git approach is very obvious > to existing packagers, whereas the namespaces are still a sort of > easter egg. Maybe we could do something in fedpkg to make it more > discoverable? As far as I know, separate repos shouldn't be very expensive in terms of maintenance once everything is in place. If we do decide to have separate ACLs for the "rpm" and "check" repos, that will require some work to make sure that changes affecting both repos are propagated correctly. That being said, I'm not sure that having separate ACLs is much of a benefit for Fedora. Assuming we end up going forward with current plans to gate packages based on results from automation, I don't see how someone with commit privileges on the "check" repo could cause much more damage than if that person had commit privileges on the "rpm" repo assuming that the other maintainers are watching the commits coming in (and I do assume that folks are paying attention). Once pull requests on dist-git repos are possible, I don't see enough advantages to having separate ACLs to justify the work to keep everything synced. > Also, if we do go with a separate namespace, how about "tests" instead > of "taskotron", with tasktron a subdir of that, and "testcases" > another (for https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/942)? When it was discussed earlier, we had been leaning towards using "rpms-checks" so that the concept could be expanded to things like the docker layered images (docker-checks) or anything else that we end up wanting to have similar repos for in the future. That would certainly be one way to start improving the package-related testcase documentation. Tim > > Thanks for working on all this. It's awesome to see it start to > > come to fruition! > > +1 > >
Attachment:
pgpPJZQSEfAEr.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
