On 27/03/19 09:59, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:16:24PM +0000, Jeremy Cline wrote:
On 3/26/19 5:36 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Michal Konecny wrote:
On 25/03/19 21:23, Jeremy Cline wrote:
On 3/25/19 1:55 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
KF> Well, I find it unfortunate, does that count? :)
It is unfortunate, but note that it's unfortunate simply because of our
procedures. Certainly it would be nice if the functionality for making
new branches and changing monitoring and some bugzilla settings were
integrated directly into src.fp.o; I won't argue against that. However,
that doesn't mean that changing those settings couldn't be accomplished
via some means other than a PR.
Possibilities I can think of include:
* Doing this via tickets in a manner similar to how branches are
requested. This would require teaching the ticket processing tools
how to perform the operation, and writing some tool to submit the
request. Kind of a lot of overhead for a rare operation.
* Just storing this information in the package repository. I've never
understood why the system can't just extract this information from
git. I suspect there must be some reason related to security or
resources consumption which prevents services from having a shallow
git clone around from which to grab information like this, but
I'm not
sure.
This is how it _should_ work. I just looked at the actual implementation
and hotness is doing an HTTP GET to the scm-requests repository. It
makes no sense, each repo should have a "monitoring" file or something.
From the perspective of hotness, nothing changes. I have no idea why it
was put in a central repository.
I started to maintain the-new-hotness few months ago, so I don't know why
there is
some central repository. I agree with Jeremy that the best option is to have
monitoring
information directly in package repository.
The original idea, I believe, was to allow for the file to different per branch
without breaking the one branch for all releases that many packager like.
That doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying people might want
different files per branch, but also only have one branch in their dist-
git? Or is this only about the modularity/stream branching thing?
The thought was that people may want different behavior per branch without
having different files/content per branch.
So the-new-hotness notifies about 0.1 in EPEL and 1.0 in F29 and 2.0 in master.
This type of scenario becoming increasingly possible with stream branching.
I don't think the-new-hotness does anything like this. It just files the
issue in Bugzilla that new version is out.
Michal
I'm trying to remember the thought process from back then, I'm not saying it was
perfect, that it is still valid nor that we cannot change it, just trying to
give some context :)
Pierre
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
