On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 07:32:09AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 03:44:49PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > OK, it seems that everybody commented. The part about allowing > > proven packagers more freedom with the package was controversial, > > so I'm withdrawing that, but otherwise I didn't see disagreement. > > > > Updated proposal: > > 1. drop "upstream" at https://pagure.io/fedora-release > > (PR to add an obsoletion note is at https://pagure.io/fedora-release/pull-request/119) > > 2. Allow pull requests in src.fp.o/fedora-release > > (one of the owners has to do this) > > 2b. Maybe also set "Block Un-Signed commits" while at it > > > > 3. add me to the commiters list (my account is 'zbyszek'). > > (Kevin said he is OK with that, I hope there is no disagreement. > > I don't see a button to requests ACLs anywhere.) > > > > 4. I'll start my pulling in https://pagure.io/fedora-release/pull-request/117 ;) > > > > Zbyszek > > Hi, > > fedora-release maintainers, ping. Hi fedora-release maintainers, I'd appreciate some kind of response and decision on the proposed workflow changes, and a reply to my request for write access. I think the package is need of help, I'm willing to help, we had a useful discussion that clarified a number of points, but it's hard to make progress if things just die when we get to actually doing anything. Zbyszek > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 08:48:05PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:51:00PM +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:45 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11/08/2017 07:13 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:03:30AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > > > > >> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>> We have such special protections for the kernel (signing), firefox > > > > > (trademarks), > > > > > >>> and for bootloaders (signing again), and some packages which don't > > > > > consider > > > > > >>> the fedora repo the canonical location for sources. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hold the phone! When did we allow packages to not consider the Fedora > > > > > >> Dist-Git the canonical location for sources? > > > > > > > > > > > > For fedora-release the idea is that "upsteam" has a copy of the spec > > > > > > file, and the changes are supposed to be copied both ways. But I think > > > > > > there's no disagreement with retiring "upstream", so this issue should > > > > > > be moot soon (independently of the other stuff being discussed). > > > > > > > > > > Well, this thread has had posts from 1 of the 4 maintainers. > > > > > I don't think it would be appropriate to change the package workflow > > > > > without input from the others. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, if the problem here is that preset requests aren't being processed > > > > > quickly enough, I'd be happy to add at least you (and any others that > > > > > showed over time they understand how presets work and can review PRs) to > > > > > review, create and merge PRs and build and push updates. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that anything else dramatic needs to happen here... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the merging to the upstream repo is only the start of the process. > > > > There's also a really awkward creation of a new tarball that has to be > > > > imported over in dist-git, then the spec file updated, etc. > > > > > > > > What I think Zbigniew is asking for is the ability to more quickly get > > > > *builds* including preset updates. Right now, even when the merges to the > > > > upstream repo happen quickly, it's often measured in weeks how long it > > > > takes to actually get a build of the Fedora RPM. > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
