On 9/7/19 1:11 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 9/6/19 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 9/6/19 1:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On 9/5/19 9:30 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>> Could we send all of the unorphan, unretire, revive etc issues to a different
repo
>>> than
https://pagure.io/releng/? I like to follow and participate in releng
discussions
>>> but the number of those recently has been a bit unwieldy and they all go to
the mailing
>>> list.
>>
>> Yeah, I'd be ok with this. I mean anyone who wants those can just watch
>> the project in pagure.
>
> Just to be clear, you'd be OK with creating a new repo for those types of
requests?
No, sorry, let me be more clear:
I'm glad I asked for clarification :)
I'd be ok with NOT copying the rel-eng list on all the releng pagure
requests. I think moving those requests to another repo might be
confusing to people. Hopefully a number of them should go away when we
implement the plugins to handle orphan stuff.
ehh. I'd be ok with not copying rel-eng list on all the releng pagure requests
but then the releng list will pretty much be very very low volume so I don't
know if it will really achieve any goals because anyone who wants to be involved
will have to subscribe to the pagure repo AND the list.
As far as confusing people, is it that big of a problem? I'm sure they end up
opening an issue against the releng repo because of some documentation somewhere
that we could just update.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests does exist.
>
>> Lets discuss this at next meeting and if no objections change it?
>>
>
> Sounds good to me. How do we get it on the agenda?
Ticket with a meeting keyword has always been the method.
(Although I see we have a ton of them with that, so we either need to
clean that up, or figure out how Mohan wants to mark them. ;)
+1