Dne 27.7.2017 v 10:05 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:35:46AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 26.7.2017 v 19:41 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): >>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:20:38PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>> Dne 24.7.2017 v 22:49 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): >>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:23:35AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>>>> For the curious ones :) >>>>> https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/pagure/rpms/fedocal >>>> Will there be something replacing >>>> >>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/vondruch/ >>> https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/pagure/user/vondruch >>> >>> This is likely the closest thing to it. >>> >> Thx >> >> Now I noticed several things: >> >> 1) The graph of my user page shows no activity. Is it just staging >> issue? Is it data import issue? Will it work on production? > The activity log hasn't been filled, we could try doing it but that will take a > really long time as it would have to run through each commits in all the repos. > However, new activity should show up just fine. New activity is probably enough. > >> 2) The "contributors" list does not appear to be correct. Looking at >> "ruby", there is listed "tagoh" user, who is in pkgdb "Obsolete" on all >> branches. Is it old data on staging? Not sure when he was obsoleted in >> pkgdb .... > The timeline shows he was obsoleted in December 2016, Ah, I knew the information must be visible somewhere. This leads me to question is similar information accessible in pagure somewhere? ;) But anyway, I was not sure about the age of the data in staging, since for example the ruby repo says it was "created 19h ago" and the "recent commit in master committed 8 months ago". This does not corresponds with the official dist-git (actually neither the repo age nor the recent commit). Looking at f26 branch [1], the last commit is from 12 years ago? The branch was created around 1st of March, so what is the content? [1] https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/pagure/rpms/ruby/commits/f26 > the data in pagure is from > yesterday (I keep running the script to add/test more things), so I think you > found a bug in this script. > I'll dig into this, thanks! > >> 3) How are the "groups" handled? Looking at "rubygem-puma", there is not >> the "group::ruby-packagers-sig" listed (might be old data, since neither >> I am listed). But trying to lookup nodejs or npm, which are owned by >> "group::nodejs-sig", these two are not available at all. Tried several >> others from top of the list of packages of this group, non appears to be >> available in pagure (?!?). > This is odd, thanks for noticing. YAW V. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
