pkgdb group package ownership
by Rich Mattes
Hi all,
Over on the -devel list, there was an announcement that pkgdb2 is growing
the capability to allow groups to be package owners and points of contact,
instead of individual committers. What this means for us is that we can
assign the normal package rights to a single "robotics-sig" group (e.g.
watchcommits, watchbugzilla, commit, etc.), and all of the members of the
"robotics-sig" pkgdb group would in turn be granted all of those rights.
It'd make it a lot easier to collaborate on packages without having to
individually request commit rights for all of them. I'd like to start
testing it, and I plan on setting the sig group as a co-maintainer on most
of the packages that I own. But before I do, i wanted to get some feedback
on a mailing list issue.
The package groups require an email address in pkgdb and a corresponding
bugzilla account for bugzilla mail, commit messages, etc. to go to. The
easiest option is to set it all to this list (robotics@), but that would
mean a lot of traffic with commit updates, bug mail, and such for all of
the packages that the "robotics-sig" group co-owns and has watch rights
to. It would mean a large uptick in volume on the list, and maybe bury
other meaningful conversation.
So moving forward we have a couple of options, which I'd like you to weigh
in on:
* Start a separate list (e.g. robotics-sig-maint@) for package related mail
and make it private to the members of the robotics sig pkgdb members.
* Use the robotics@ list, but be careful not to assign the robotics-sig
group any of the "watch" rights in pkgdb
* Use the robotics@ list, and just deal with bugmail and git commit messages
I'm leaning more towards the second or third options, since I don't really
feel like we'll need to have any private bugs and since we don't have tons
of traffic with git commits and bugs and such.
Rich
9 years, 1 month
- 4
- 4
Gazebo updates
by Rich Mattes
Hi all,
Over the weekend I updated the version of Gazebo in fedora 20, 21 and
rawhide to 3.1.0 (the latest in the 3.x series of releases.) This involved
bumping sdformat to 2.0.1, which involved bumping urdfdom and
urdfdom-headers to the 0.3.0 release. These updates are sitting in
updates-testing at the moment, please let me know if there are any problems.
I plan to keep fedora 20 and 21 on the 3.x series of releases, and start
updating rawhide (f22) to gazebo 4.0.2. I'd be OK with trying to push 4.0
into f21 before release so that it's what gets included on the f21 livedvd,
as long as ROS indigo plays nice with it.
Rich
9 years, 2 months
- 2
- 2
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →