Re: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday, 8 April 2019 07:42:25 CEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 04. 19 1:32, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end:
> > https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af
> > 
> > It now handles all backend that Anitya supports.
> > 
> > I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new
> > packages
> > being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new
> > hotness to pick them up.
> > 
> > However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no-
> > monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb
> > and it seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many
> > bugs won't be filled even if the packages is outdated.
> > 
> > I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track
> > updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So
> > we would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to
> > "monitoring". Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be
> > against such a change? Right now we have tons of packages left
> > unmaintained as a result.
> 
> For some packages it makes sense to be able to opt-out.
> Some of them release versions that are not OK for Fedora, some only go
> released together with another packages, some release 3 times a day.
> There might be other reasons.
> 
> I would suggest the following approach:
> 
>   1. Switch everything that was converted from Pagure. Keep anything
> disabled by later commits.
>   2. Mass e-mail the affected maintainers about this with specific
> instructions to opt-out if needed.
> 
> For the repo maintainers, I suggest demanding reasons before merging a Pull
> Request that sets a package to no-monitoring.

I've identified 12889 packages which were imported with "no-monitoring".
I could mail all of the affected maintainers but the instructions to opt-out
are quite tedious and I fear the wrath of affected maintainers.

Any affected people want to chime in?

_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux