Re: Ideas for better development processes when maintaining hundreds of packages

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

 



On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:18 AM Remi Collet <Fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There are different:
>
> * Changelog is for end user
> * Git log is for package maintainer

I completely agree with this distinction. We're creating more "noise"
for end users if we end up adding all the "whoops" commits into the
%changelog. And asking maintainers to add "[skip]" strings or whatever
into the Git commit logs adds yet another magic/manual thing that
packagers must learn.

This is why rdopkg writes the dist-git commit messages from the RPM
%changelog instead of the other way around. For example I can write or
modify my message in %changelog, run "rdopkg amend", and it
automatically updates my dist-git message to match what I wrote in
%changelog. I have not had to copy-and-paste information from
%changelog into the dist-git message in years.

> > * committing to git should build the package
> >
> > Is there a reason why this wouldn't be the case?
>
> Yes, because I often commit various changse "before" the build
> (some being cherry-pick on other branch, some not)

This one I happen to disagree with. I've set up a Jenkins job that
automatically builds on another (non-Fedora) Koji instance for a large
number of packages, and it is fantastic to never worry about
remembering to run "rpkg build" by hand any more. I trigger the builds
on the "push" bus messages though, instead of building every single
commit. If I'm making many small changes, then I'll commit them all to
Git locally, then push them all at once. When other developers don't
follow that practice of batching up their commit pushes, it does mean
that Koji ends up building a lot more frequently, and we trigger
composes more frequently throughout each day... but frankly that leads
to some other advantages, because it makes things more "continuous"
overall.

> IMHO, remember KISS, and don't try to add more magic to our tooling
>
> And I really prefer to see stabilization of our current tools and
> infrastructure before breaking it again.

I completely agree with this Remi. We're still suffering from the loss
of pkgdb's features. I would prefer to fix what's broken before trying
to mess with changelogs and end up with something half-baked.

- Ken
_______________________________________________
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