On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 18:40 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > AW> Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the > AW> primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source > AW> for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem > AW> when someone (e.g. a provenpackager like me...) changes the package > AW> directly in dist-git. > > But, uh, how does rel-eng do it? Or do these maintainers all yell at > rel-eng after every mass rebuild? Yes, more or less. The good ones notice that the mass rebuild happened and merge the change back. The bad ones just push back over the top of the mass rebuild and mess stuff up. > There are packages where people might want to request communication > before people do work on the package. Those packages might be > especially complex or have special bootstrapping requirements or a > delicate dependency chain. That I can understand. The spec file in > Fedora git not being "canonical", though, is simply not a valid reason. > For Fedora's workflow, which involves a community of package maintainers > who expect to be able to make use of the Fedora's infrastructure and > tools, there can be no possible alternate canonical location for the > spec. This is more or less my opinion, but there are those who don't agree and have some kind of reason (such as using the same spec file to do package builds in some other place, or wanting to maintain the spec file for a tool alongside its source so they can easily do test package builds as part of the tool's unit tests, etc.) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
