Dealing with PPC in Fedora 9(+)

[Jeremy Katz]

On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:58 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 14:58 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > This seems a reasonable compromise all together.  I can be happy with
> > this for Fedora 9.  Hopefully by the time 9 is let loose, we'll have
> > had at least one other full fledged secondary arch up and running and
> > proving that the method can work.
> 
> I suspect this is going to work a whole lot better if I have commit
> access to anaconda, kudzu, rhpl, booty, etc.

I'm just going to come right out and say that if Fedora as a project
starts dictating commit access to hosted "upstream" projects, that's a
quick way to kill the use of Fedora for hosting upstream projects.
Because that's not the way that commit access for projects should be
given.  Ever.

> At the moment, the round-trip time between me generating a patch to
> something like kudzu and seeing it in a testable rawhide build is
> somewhat suboptimal.

Getting rawhide builds at all right now is a bit of a challenge all its
own with the openssl/openldap rev :)

> I don't mean to complain -- I know people are busy and have better
> things to do than commit my patches and kick off builds so that I can
> get on with testing rawhide. But people are going to be busy in the
> run-up to te releases too, when I most want my fixes to be getting into
> builds promptly.

Actually, run up to release is easier because it's "bug-fix mode" time
rather than "integrate huge new chunks of code" time.  Especially when
some of the changes underway are directly related to the change that
you're also wanting to do.

And < a day of turnaround for the most recent one really isn't bad.
Also, there is a member of what is ostensibly the ppc team (pnasrat) who
does have commit access to most of the above.

> So it's probably best if I can be a little more self-sufficient in that
> respect, by having commit access to both upstream and package
> repositories and being able to do builds (at least for rawhide). Please.
> 
> Actually, we've spoken often of "arch teams" having commit access to
> _all_ packages. Is that feasible?

There's a very large difference between "committing to packages" and
"committing to upstream".  We don't have a great way of doing the "arch
maintainers can commit to any package", but since we're not talking
about huge numbers of arch teams, we could probably go with the quick
answer (just adding people to cvsadmin)

Jeremy