Future changes in the new package and new branch processes

[Christopher]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek at redhat.com> wrote:

> Quoting Pierre-Yves Chibon (2014-09-05 17:08:39)
> > New procedure
> > =============
> >
> > * packager opens a review-request on bugzilla
> > * reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to ?
> > * reviewer does the review
> > * reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to +
> > * packager goes to pkgdb2 to request new package and specifies:
> >    - package name
> >    - package summary
>
> How about taking this from specfile? (and therefore provide a tool for
> maintaining specfiles & srpms for reviews)
>
>
It'd be great if the fedpkg tool could do some of this. For example, fedpkg
could create git repos locally, from a template and a few questions, for
new packages, which could be pushed somewhere for review (usually GitHub,
I'd imagine). It could even create the review bug automatically, as well as
assist in the review process for the reviewer (setting the correct flags).

Once approved and the package is created in pkgdb, git could be adjusted
automatically from a clone of this original repo created by the fedpkg tool.

This puts some burden on the reviewer to review not only the package, but
also the use of the packaging process: ensure that the user created the git
repo correctly. But, that might not be a bad thing. I was struck by how
"manual" the new package process was, and how "automated" everything is
later. It's a big gap that could be closed with more tools on the "prepare
for review" side of things.


> >    - package branches
> >    - link to review on bugzilla
> >      => requests added to the scm admin queue
> > * cvsadmin checks the review (check reviewer is a packager¹)
> > * cvsadmin approves the creation of the package in pkgdb
> >      => package creation broadcasted on fedmsg
> > * git adjusted automatically
>
> Tomas
>

Overall, I like the proposal, but I think it could be made simpler on new
packagers (and reviewers) with better tooling (which I suppose could be
considered out of scope for this proposal, but something to consider in
future).

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140908/9bfcd7dc/attachment-0001.html>