Re: Proposal: Allow all packagers to push empty commits to any package

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

 



On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:27:42PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 5:13 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 21. 02. 25 12:41, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 1:17 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hello.
> > >>
> > >> With the recent discussions about provenpackagers in Fedora, I recently got an
> > >> idea.
> > >>
> > >> One of the common needs for provenpackagers is to simply "bump and rebuild" a
> > >> set of dependencies.
> > >>
> > >> All packagers are already able to build anything (except a very specific and
> > >> small set of specially-signed packages). However, to bump the package, they
> > >> need commit rights. For that reason, provenpackager rights are often required.
> > >>
> > >> With the wide adoption of %autorelease, such bump commits are empty, which
> > >> should be easy to verify.
> > >>
> > >> What if we allowed all packagers to push empty commit to any package? That
> > >> should eliminate *some* need for provenpackager access. We would also
> > >> communicate in our policies that such bumps do not require prior agreement with
> > >> the maintainers to avoid confusion about "what are we allowed to do".
> > >
> > > This sounds a bit more complicated than it needs to be ...
> > > I would much rather explore not having to push empty commits *at all*,
> > > and have koji auto-increment the build number if it would cause an NVR
> > > conflict ... (yes, this should be possible with minor changes to the
> > > %dist macro and some small additions to koji).
> >
> > IIRC this is the direction we explicitly decided not to go with %autorelease.
> > We wanted the rebuild reason committed.
> 
> Those are kind of two orthogonal issues. You could still use an empty
> commit if you *want* a changelog entry :)

I still think we should always require a changelog entry, so that that
the reason for the rebuild is always explicit.

(In the normal case, there should never be a need for "trivial"
rebuilds, and rebuilds should be for cases when there really is an
imporant change. If your API or ABI changes all the time in a way that
is backward incompatible and no-change rebuilds are required, then
_that_ is the problem and something to reconsider. We shouldn't build
a system to make such cases silent.)

Zbyszek
-- 
_______________________________________________
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