On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:20:30PM +0000, 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.
BTW, why we cannot use pkgs.fedoraproject.org
for exploded tree too?
Just another set of repositories, maybe with a different HTTP alias,
, or so...
That's entirely possibile - the key points to me are just that the
repos are separate, and access control is applied uniformly across
both. Beyond that I don't care where they are actually hosted.
> 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.
All such information belong to spec file :-)
for example upstream SCM URL is already missing in our spec files,
it's more important information than URL to tarball.
I suggested the GIT SCM request, because that's where the tools
already look for this kind of info, so it'd be a simpler addition
to the GIT creation process.