Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

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

 



Matthew Miller wrote:
> Do you have an alternative proposal?

Have you seen my reply elsewhere in this thread?

I wrote there:
> You need a different CI approach. Maybe: 
> * a push hook that just locks the repository and does the tests before 
>   validating the push, though I can see that becoming a PITA as well, or 
> * an asynchronous CI push hook that just notifies the maintainer on 
>   failures, but does not otherwise touch the repository, or 
> * an asynchronous CI push hook that automatically reverts commits that
>   fail the CI tests, or even 
> * an asynchronous CI push hook that automatically uses a force push to 
>   revert the commits that fail the CI tests in such a way that they vanish 
>   from history entirely, as if they had never happened, 
> or something more clever that we have not thought of yet. 

What is clear is that submitting pull requests to myself does not make any 
sense whatsoever.

        Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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