On 02/19/2015 05:21 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:52:41PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
On 02/19/2015 04:25 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:45:41PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
On 02/19/2015 02:30 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
Hey Pranith!
Thanks for putting this topic on my radar. Uncommunicated packaging
changes have indeed been a pain for non-RPM distributions on several
occasions. We should try to inform other packagers about required
changes in the packaging scripts or upgrade/installation process better.
+1
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:26:33PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113778
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191176
How can we make the process of giving good packages for things other than
RPMs?
My guess is that we need to announce packaging changes very clearly.
Maybe it makes sense to have a very low-traffic packaging@xxxxxxxxxxx
mailinglist where all packagers from all distributions are subscribed?
+1 for announce packaging changes very clearly.
But I think we should keep using gluster-devel ML for packaging discussions
as IMO it is the right platform to get all developers and packagers
together. However We need to discuss these stuff clearly which we lacked
before.
My idea was to reduce the number of emails that packagers receive. Not
all packagers are active as a Gluster developer, and the -devel list has
quite some traffic. I am afraid that important changes would get lost in
the noise.
Niels
I understand. However my thought was, if we segregate the discussion we
might miss valuable feedback from developers. Also not sure if discussion
around packaging on gluster-devel will increase understanding around
packaging of developers. I agree with you on the email traffic though.
I prefer to not bother most developers with the packaging. If they are
interested, they can subscribe to the packagers list :-)
Developers should clearly state how their components need to get
installed/updated, they should be able to send those details to the
packaging list. When we review changes to the .spec, we should keep in
mind to share those details too.
If we as packagers notice any issues, we would file a bug or request
input on the gluster-devel list. Once the issue is settled, a
description can be shared among the packagers.
Do you think that should be workable?
Niels
Yes, we can definitely try this. Lets do it.
Thanks,
Lala
Thanks,
Lala
Thanks,
Lala
I've added all packagers that I could track on CC, and am interested in
their preferences and ideas.
Thanks,
Niels
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
