On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:16:32PM -0600, Tim Flink wrote: > 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. Yes, I don't see the advantage of so much permission fragmentation. I'd much prefer that maintainers of individual packages arrange this between themselves (e.g. "Please only commit to tests"), using social means, as makes sense for the particular group of people. Maybe we should standardize the prefix for git commits: "taskotron: " or "tests: " or whatever, so it's easy to stop in git history. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
