Recommended way of proposing changes in someone else Fedora packages configuration

Petr Spacek pspacek at
Wed Oct 21 05:54:49 UTC 2015

On 19.10.2015 19:32, Christopher wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:42 AM Jared K. Smith <jsmith at>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Marcin ZajÄ…czkowski <mszpak at> wrote:
>>> I like the idea with mirroring Fedora Git to GitHub. Read only mirror
>>> just to be a dedicated place for that kind of contributions (via pull
>>> requests).
>> While I like the idea of making it easier for people to submit patches,
>> I'm not sure setting up a read-only GitHub mirror is the answer.
>> In my day job, I happen to maintain a huge GitHub mirror of a large open
>> source code repository where the upstream has not yet moved to Git.
>> Unfortunately, what happens is that people submit pull requests against the
>> read-only mirror, but the upstream maintainers rarely if ever look at the
>> pull requests.  We end up closing most of the pull requests with a message
>> that says "Contact upstream directly and try to get your patches to them."
> The ASF uses a pubsub bot to notify project's devel mailing lists when a PR
> is issued against the read-only mirrors on GitHub. This email contains
> instructions on how to add a second remote and perform the pull request
> manually. It also explains how to force the PR to be closed without write
> access to the mirror (with a commit message that says something like "this
> closes #X", where X is the PR number, which gets processed when the mirror
> is next sync'd). In this way, it opens up the community to a wider audience
> by enabling contributors to use tools they are comfortable with, but in a
> way that doesn't technically add a dependency on GitHub. Fedora could do
> something similar by automatically opening a BZ issue, in the same way
> upstream monitoring opens up new BZs.
> I know this would be really useful, because before I submitted my first
> package to Fedora, I had a slightly difficult time figuring out how to
> contribute, or even check out and view a project's git repository (doing an
> anonymous clone with fedpkg wasn't obvious).
>> I also think it would be non-trivial to map Fedora users to GitHub
>> accounts, or to keep said information in sync.
> This would be non-trivial... but it's also completely unnecessary. The
> mirrors can/should be read-only while the Fedora repos remain
> authoritative, with maintainer write-access.
> The ASF does allow committers to affiliate with the ASF org in GitHub
> (where the read-only mirrors exist) by voluntarily adding their GitHub
> usernames to a database, but this doesn't get them any special access to
> the mirrors... it's just for flair, to show off their membership on their
> GitHub profile. As far as I'm concerned, this is a completely unnecessary
> thing to do. Perhaps at some point, we could do this by offering a
> voluntary field for GitHub username, but it's certainly not essential to
> using GitHub to enable pull-requests.
> Of course, Fedora doesn't have to do it the way the ASF did, but I think
> there's value in looking at what they've done, because there's value in
> exposing Fedora's packages to a large (and growing) community of GitHub.

This sounds very very cool. For reference:

Petr Spacek  @  Red Hat

More information about the devel mailing list