On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 13:28, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dne 16. 12. 24 v 23:13 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>>
>> And based on my experience, I doubt this particular provenpackager
>> status was stripped based on something like that.
>>
>> Sure, I guess we all agree that the line is fuzzy and probably not
>> very well documented/defined. That does not mean we use that to
>> justify problematic provenpackager behavior.
>
> I agree with Miro.
>
> I doubt anyone complains about release-bumps.
>
> In past, I complained about other PP commits (not probinson) - they
> changed somehow random parts of spec. E.g. URL in SOURCEX. Or /usr/bin
> to %{_bindir}. This changes were either problematic for my workflow or
> simply incorrect. And these changes (directly done in dist-git) were
> not triggered by any issue. Though, I was alway able to resolve it
> with the author without the need to reach FESCO.
>
This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943dde
That was from 10 years ago, likely when I was one of the two rel-eng people dealing with composes, and it was likely blocking the building of release artifacts (it was so long ago I don't remember), I also don't believe we even had pagure at that time and hence no PRs, I don't think it's relevant or useful in this discussion, a lot of things have changed in the project over that time, and like adamw has said as part of release building processes things are done to get things done and working.
As part of the release building process, only the smallest
changes should have been done and renumbering patches is not one
of them. Writing proper commit message, which focuses especially
on "why" was always must. I would also appreciate reference to
relevant tickets which aims to resolve the issue at hand in proper
way. Not mentioning that rebuild of Ruby would hardly be blocker
to anything.
I would love to believe that this is relict of past, but some of the discussions on this ML does not support this belief.
Just to put it clear, I don't think I was part of the FESCo decision, but I support it (and I hate CoC, because they lead us to this non-transparent discussions pretending not harming anybody).
I don't care that much, but IMHO, it would be enough if you
closed what you wrote above with something like "sorry" and we
could move on. For some reasons, you have not ended your remark
like that 🤷
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
