Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

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

 



"Michael J Gruber" <mjg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> There is the current worklflow and the current mindset. One influences
> the other.
>
> For a long-time gitter, the prevailing Fedora packager mindset is
> still very much "dist-cvs". dist-git is often used as merely a tool to
> drive "dist-something", not so much as a vcs, and really rarely as a
> tool for collaborative package management. Here are just a few
> examples:

Thank you for the reply.

> - Commit messages often explain almost nothing, in particular not the
> "why". (You can see the "what" from the diff...)
>
> - Branches for different releases are often used like separate repos
> without any merge-down or merge-up concept; changes cherry-picked
> rather than merged; release-specific differences implented by %if's in
> spec rather than differences between branches.
>
> - Discussion is on the ML or in BZ with no connection to dist-git
> (unless one mentions bz # in the commit).
>
> - Changelog in spec is completely strange from a git point of view, it
> even makes merging unnecessarily hard; and no, th contained info
> usually is not any better than the commit message. Oh, did I mention
> bodhi update notes? What a redundancy.
>
> So, a a new worklflow which "encourages" a proper git workflow is most
> welcome.

Leaving aside for the moment whether I agree that these are issues, none
of the changes proposed relate to the problems as far as I can see.  For
context, the changes proposed were:

> ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests
> ○ Pull-requests are automatically tested
> ○ Every commit to dist-git (ie: PR merged) is automatically built in
> koji
> ○ Every build in koji results automatically in an update in bodhi
> ○ Every update in bodhi is automatically tested
> ○ If the tests pass, the update is automatically pushed to the
> repository

None of these relate to branching, spec storage, or "proper" git
workflow (especially in the case of a single-maintainer package), and
nothing has been added to connect ML/BZ discussion with the commits to
dist-git, or even improve commit message quality.

Thanks,
--Robbie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
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