On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:31 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 08:30 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:19 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
wrote:
> > Good Morning Everyone,
> >
> > I know this question has already been raised a few times, but I think we
should
> > raise it once more: what do we see as future for loopabull?
> >
> > It is currently triggered on 4 topics (3 from prod and 1 from stg) to do
basically
> > three actions:
> > - Flag commit successfully built in koji, in other words it adds these flags
> > to dist-git:
> >
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-filesystem/c/717f2a929bd25b62a04...
> > - Flag when the Fedora CI start testing a PR
> > - Flag when the Fedora CI finished testing a PR (and thus reports Pass/Fail)
> >
>
> Wait, wait, wait, what?! These aren't things natively supported by the
> software we use (Koji and Zuul)? It seems like the place to start here
> would be to move this functionality to the right places. A koji plugin
> and an extension for the Zuul pagure driver to do those things would
> make a ton more sense here...
Why, though?
I quite like the design of small consumer components to do specific
jobs in response to messages. Lots of the bits I maintain work that
way. Why is it necessarily better for Koji to grow the ability to
change stuff in dist-git than to have a little go-between to do the
job?
If it's discoverable, I don't care. But I had no idea that Koji and
Zuul weren't responsible for those things.
As for loopabull, I don't particularly see a problem with keeping it.
There's nothing wrong with hobby-maintained software. After all, we're
a hobby-maintained distribution. :)
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!