Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

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

 




Dne 19. 12. 24 v 9:55 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:37AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 18/12/2024 22:59, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
What I'd like to see is to remove provenpackagers, do everything through
PRs and have a separate SIG/group that can fast-track and merge any PR.
Not an option because when we update some important libraries, we need to
rebuild more than 50 packages. If we have to use pull requests and wait for
them to be merged, it will take forever to push updated versions of these
libraries.
For these situations IMHO it would be better if we did not need to have
provenpackagers trigger the rebuilds. We should have a fully automatable
way for *any* package to trigger a rebuild of dependent things. If the
person does not need to make any changes to the spec, directly, only
through an automated tool, there would be no need for the elevated
provenpackagers privilege and it would also avoid any risk of complaints
of unrelated changes being made at the same time.

In the context of such rebuilds, provenpackagers is simply a workaround
for our insufficient automation.


I would be more then happy if there was some automation helping with e.g. mass rebuild of Ruby, which is my main use case for having PP. But I don't think it is realistic to expect anything like this any time soon 😔

There are also packages such as e.g. rubygem-json, which are maintained by PP, despite having their (unresponsive?) maintainer. Granted, this is unfortunate situation. But apparently, it does not bother anybody that much. I'd rather use my PP privileges (and I'd not have anything against using PR in cases like this) then go through unresponsive maintainer process (maybe just to learn that they are actually responsive solely for unresponsive process 🤷. And just FTR, it took me years to officially overtake the "ruby" package).


Vít



With regards,
Daniel

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

[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