Dne 27.7.2017 v 10:29 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:05:40AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> 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. >> >>> 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, 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. > Phew, found it, the script is running against the staging instance of pkgdb > (obviously since staging cannot talk to production) and the staging instance of > pkgdb clearly has some old data. Makes sense. > > I will look into updating the pkgdb DB in stg and re-run the script so we have a > more up to date picture. Thx! V. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
