9:15 p.m.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:02:35 +0200
Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:36:05PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> 2014-07-15 17:16 GMT+02:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon
> <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:04:26PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > A A 2014-07-15 16:35 GMT+02:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon
> <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>:
> >
> > A A A New procedure (1)
> > A A A =================
> >
> > A A A * packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
> > A A A * reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
> > A A A * reviewer does the review
> > A A A * reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to +
> > A A A * packager goes to pkgdb2 to request new package
> > A A A A A - precises package name
> > A A A A A - precises package summary
> > A A A A A - precises package branches
> > A A A A A - precises link to review on bugzilla
> > A A A * requests added to the scm admin queue
> > A A A * cvsadmin checks the review (check reviewer is a
> > packagerA^1) A A A * cvsadmin approves the creation of the
> > package in pkgdb A A A * package creation is broadcasted
> > on fedmsg A A A * git adjusted automatically
> >
> > A A A A^1 we could check this automatically by checking
> > which
> comment mentions
> > A A A 'approved'
> > A A A and checking who set the fedora-review flag to +
> >
> > A A A New procedure (2) A - Relies on fedmsg/bugzilla
> > integration A A A =================
> >
> > A A A * packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
> > A A A * reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
> > A A A * reviewer does the review
> > A A A * reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to +
> > A A A * automatically set fedora-cvs flag to ?
> > A A A * cvsadmin checks the review (check reviewer is a
> > packager) A A A * cvsadmin sets the fedora-cvs flag to +
> > A A A * flag change is broadcasted onto fedmsg
> > A A A * pkgdb automatically creates the package (w/ name
> > and summary
> provided
> > A A A in the
> > A A A A A review)
> >
> > A A How does pkgdb know the fas name of the packager? By
> > the email of
> the
> > A A reporter?
>
> The email would be the way indeed. We do require packager to
> have the same email
> in FAS and bugzilla and the admins get an hourly message when
> someone doesn't.
>
> There have been (many?) cases, where the reporter didn't want to
> finish the review process and another one took over the review
> request in the same bug. So I wouldn't rely on this check as there
> are chances where the reviewer doesn't insisted on opening a new
> review request in such a case...
> Or would it be possible to check all comments for SRPM/SPEC
> urls, so that all have been posted by the bug reporter?
That is a valid point and a nice argument to keep the fedora-cvs flag
in :)
Packager is whoever update fedora-cvs to '?'
> > A A Maybe pkgdb2 could wait for the packager to approve the
> automatically
> > A A filled values and then could kick off, when the packager
> confirms?
>
> The idea is that summary will be updated via a cron taking the
> info from yum
> anyway, so, if there was a typo in the summary, fixing it in
> the spec file will
> fix it in pkgdb.
>
> > A A This could then be merged with the next item below
> > A A A
> >
> > A A A * packager goes to pkgdb2 to request new branches
>
> Merging validating name/summary with requesting new branches is
> possible, but it
> will make things a little more complex as my idea is that this
> part of the
> process would/could be used when requesting additional
> branches on an existing
> package.
> > A A Why is there a second check of an cvsadmin needed, when
> > a new
> branch is
> > A A created by the "Main Contact" of the new package?
>
> That is the same check as the one we do already when
> requesting new branches
new branches
> Which should happen automatically by the process script of
the
> cvsadmin, isn't it?
> If it is automatically there, it could also be done fully
> automatically without this second check by a cvsadmin.
I will let the cvs admins speak up here, but I'm not entirely sure
it's fully automatic.
cvsadmins manually verify that the branches are requested
by a current
maintainer and that people are not trying to sneak themselves onto the
acls, though the checks could and should all be automated. In theory
epel branches we make sure the package is not in rhel already
>
> > A A Shouldn't it be enough, to check above, if the review
> > was sane
> with
> > A A setting fedora-cvs to +?
> >
> > A A Another possibility would be to remove anything from
> > above with A A "fedora-cvs" and only one check of an
> > cvsadmin below would be
> required.
>
> One advantage of keeping fedora-cvs is that it gives us the
> flexibility when/if
> we miss or fedmsg drops a message.
> But, we could consider it as well, I just seems to remember
> that Dennis wanted
i think its nice as it gives one place to go to see all the
package
info. but i can see doing without it also. if we moved reviews out of
bugzilla into their own app then it opens up all sorts of change in
processes.
> to keep it in at the meeting.
> >
> > A A A * requests added to the scm admin queue
> > A A A * cvsadmin approves the creation of the branches in
> > pkgdb A A A * branch creation is broadcasted on fedmsg
> > A A A * git adjusted automatically
>
> Pierre
>
> Tom
_______________________________________________
rel-eng mailing list
rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/rel-eng