On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:42:22AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 17:45 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:41 PM Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 12:41:06PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > > Petr, I should have probably stressed that our target is Fedora (or
> > > even all Red Hat operating systems). Yes, there are hundreds of
> > > distributions and we cannot solve their problems. We are open for
> > > collaboration though - we cannot drive changes in distributions which
> > > we don't know or use.
> > >
> > If you only target Fedora, then it means that the same amount of Fedora
> > maintainers will maintain twofold amount of repositories. Does it indeed save
> > work? What's the benefit of maintaining more repositories?
> My personal expectation here would be that if I enabled source-git for
> my packages, I wouldn't want to touch dist-git and only work in the
> source-git repos. Yes, there would still be changes coming to
> dist-git, and I'd inspect those from source-git. I'd even ask
> contributors to use source-git for PR contributions if possible.
To give a provenpackager perspective on this - it rarely turns out to
be possible. Usually when we need to touch someone else's package, it's
to deal with an urgent problem - say an unannounced soname bump that
requires a bunch of packages to be rebuilt, a bug preventing a nightly
compose from running or causing a serious problem in it, something like
In those situations we usually want to fix the problem *now*, not
"whenever someone has time to review the 'upstream' PR and merge it and
do whatever they have to do to trigger a build 'downstream'".
So when I'm trying to fix an urgent issue in a package that tries to
keep its spec file elsewhere, I usually just fix it in dist-git and
issue apologies later.
IME that isn't really a huge problem. We maintain master libvirt spec
upstream, and when a provenpackager has had to make a critical change
in Fedora it wasn't really a burden on us. We've just synced the change
upstream ourselves after the fact, and thereafter everything was fine
again. The kind of changes that provenpackagers are doing are usually
pretty simple and easily understood & resolved.
Larger invasive changes (updating spec file to use new best practice
for python macros last year was an example), are not things that are
time critical. So in those cases it is more reasonable to require
going to the master source-git repo.
I don't see a way this is ever going to
the case unless you give all provenpackagers commit rights to the
'upstream' repo, or have a completely automated PR merging system that
also triggers a downstream build, or something like that.
I think both those options would be more trouble than the problem they're
trying to solve. As long as need for provenpackager emergency fixes is
pretty infrequent, it is easier to just accept them making quick fixes to
dist-git and sync back to source-git manually after the fact.