Dne 17. 03. 20 v 14:24 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:25:03PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 17. 03. 20 v 11:58 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): >>> Good Morning Everyone, >>> >>> A little while ago[1], we integrated anitya in dist-git itself, allowing to >>> stop using fedora-scm-request's[2] git repository to store this information. >>> >>> However, this git repository is still being used to store bugzilla overrides >>> (i.e.: default assignee on bugzilla ticket when they differ from the point of >>> contact (main admin) of the package in dist-git). >>> >>> Together with Karsten Hopp we worked on integrating this functionality on >>> pagure-dist-git[3], thus allowing to get rid entirely of the git repository at >>> fedora-scm-request[2]. >> >> Am I supposed to be able to modify the owners? > Yes and your comment as well as Miro's makes me wonder if something isn't > working as it should. The "Update" together with the icon is probably not intuitive. I thought that the button will refresh the fields or something. Also, the UX differs from the "monitoring status", where there is popup. > >>> This work has been deployed in staging today. We would very much appreciate if >>> you could take a few minute of your time and see if it works to your >>> liking: https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/ >>> >>> The overrides information from production has been migrated yesterday to the >>> staging dist-git, so what you see in the UI reflects the current state of the >>> overrides in production as of yesterday. >>> >>> Here is an example with an override: >>> https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/rpms/0ad >>> >>> One note: in the rpms namespace, the UI will always show you the default >>> assignee for Fedora and Fedora EPEL, regardless of whether the package is in >>> EPEL. >> >> Packages coming from RHEL are the same I assume. I just asking, because >> there is difference in not being in EPEL and being in EPEL transitively >> from RHEL. > I am not quite following you here, what I meant is that the UI always displays > Fedora and EPEL for the rpms namespace, even, for example, for the kernel which > is definitely not in EPEL. > I am not sure I'm clearer, so I must be missing something here, sorry. If package might be in EPEL, but it is not, because nobody have imported it seems to be different case then Kernel, which can't be in EPEL. These two should be distinguished. Vít _______________________________________________ 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
