On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:32:01PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:27:20PM +0200, Alek Paunov wrote:
> On 19.11.2013 16:20, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:29:06PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:39:50PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> >>>We have to learn fedpkg to do all the magic ;-) Something like
> >>>add remote git tree with exploded tree:
> >>> fedpkg exploded-tree add ssh://git.fedorahosted.org/git/foo.git
> >>This is all great, but the problem is that co-maintainers and
> >>provenpackagers need to be (automatically if possible) added to the
> >>fedorahosted tree. Otherwise there's a big extra step for them if
> >>they want to follow the package owner's preferred patching system.
> >Ideally the GIT SCM request added to bugzilla when reviews are
> >approved would have a "Upstream GIT URL" option and would setup
> >a clone of this, and create branches for the fedora releases,
> >and apply the same permissioning model from dist-git branches
> >of the same names.
> What about intermediate step: optional "fNN-upstream" branch in
> addition to fNN, containing relevant upstream revision as git
> submodule (preferably referencing fedorahosted mirror, but initially
> also allowing "external" clones)?
I think it would be better to keep the upstream repo separate for
sake of size. People who just want to checkout the latest RPM
branches don't want to have to pull down 100's of MB, potentially
GB, worth of GIT repo, when current Fedora GIT repos are a mere
few MB. Only maintainers actively updating patches need that
It probably makes sense to have a "lookaside git" that's similar to
One note though, I think that in the past one of the discussion points we've
foundered on is whether we want to be mirroring upstream's git repo or
(approximately) upstream's releases. I think that's probably where we'd
need to start discussion.