Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-05-05 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:23:59AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 10:33, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > The scripts syncing information from dist-git to bugzilla have been broken > > for a > > long time (less than 5 years though) and we've picked them up, fixed and >

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-05-05 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 10:33, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > The scripts syncing information from dist-git to bugzilla have been broken > for a > long time (less than 5 years though) and we've picked them up, fixed and clean > them so they work again. > This has been announced here and on

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-05-05 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:42:27AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:12:58 -0400, James Cassell wrote: > > > > Can this stop, please? > > > > > > Again somebody has used a script to assign bugzilla EPEL tickets to me > > > again, although I am not responsible for the EPEL

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-05-04 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Mon, 04 May 2020 20:12:58 -0400, James Cassell wrote: > > Can this stop, please? > > > > Again somebody has used a script to assign bugzilla EPEL tickets to me > > again, although I am not responsible for the EPEL packages and have never > > been responsible for them. > > > > I feel

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-05-04 Thread James Cassell
On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 7:35 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > This incident turns into a growingly unpleasant experience for me. > > I've asked you to clean up the mess in bugzilla and reassign the EPEL > > packages properly, because I am not responsible for those packages. > > You've not done

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-05-04 Thread Michael Schwendt
> This incident turns into a growingly unpleasant experience for me. > I've asked you to clean up the mess in bugzilla and reassign the EPEL > packages properly, because I am not responsible for those packages. > You've not done that. I've had to do it myself. Team work doesn't mean > that you

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-31 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 20:45, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > You received a total of between 4 and 8 emails depending on how bugzilla > batched them. My apologies for the extra 3-7. More than eight because of needinfo notifications, "assigned" and "Cc" changes and tracker ticket changes. > >>

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-31 Thread Robbie Harwood
Michael Schwendt writes: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 18:11, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> I could have also needinfo(Michael) (and in hindsight I probably >> should have), but based on their reaction, I don't think they would >> have been any happier with that. > > I would have preferred private

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-31 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 18:11, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > I could have also needinfo(Michael) (and in hindsight I probably should > have), but based on their reaction, I don't think they would have been > any happier with that. I would have preferred private email over assigning multiple tickets

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-31 Thread Robbie Harwood
Fabio Valentini writes: > Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:44:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> All this would not even interest me at all, but almost a week ago >> someone from Red Hat Security decided it would be a good idea to >> assign to me

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-31 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 00:56, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> > It seems the "support" in PkgDB was also a "lie", because BugZilla >> > doesn't even support default assignees per-branch. >> >> It just worked, and when somebody opened a ticket about an EPEL package, >> the EPEL-specific maintainer

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 00:43 Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 23:57:03 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > Did you at least check if the packages were used by something else? ... > > No, and that doesn't interest me at all. I am not doing EPEL packaging, > and I consider it

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 23:57:03 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Did you at least check if the packages were used by something else? ... No, and that doesn't interest me at all. I am not doing EPEL packaging, and I consider it inacceptable that somebody assigns five years old EPEL tickets to me and

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Jeff Fearn
On 31/1/20 08:57, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> With pkgdb I could see who maintains which "branches" and which branches >> exist. With this new web UI, I don't find where I could take a look at >> who maintains which branch. For some packages I see socalled "members", a >> "main admin", an "admin",

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:26 PM Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:44:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > Until this functionality is merged into pagure's dist-git plugin, there is > > > a way, but it's a bit convoluted. > > And it's too obscure.

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 14:44:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Until this functionality is merged into pagure's dist-git plugin, there is > > a way, but it's a bit convoluted. And it's too obscure. Instead, I just retired the two EPEL branches. > And we have to do that for

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Until this functionality is merged into pagure's dist-git plugin, there is > > a way, but it's a bit convoluted. > > > > You can set an override for Fedora / EPEL default assignees in yaml files > > stored here,

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Kevin Kofler
Fabio Valentini wrote: > Until this functionality is merged into pagure's dist-git plugin, there is > a way, but it's a bit convoluted. > > You can set an override for Fedora / EPEL default assignees in yaml files > stored here, like this one for maven: > >

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:13 Michael Schwendt wrote: > I don't do EPEL packaging. I never signed up as an "owner" of EPEL > packages. > I don't want to be the new default owner of EPEL bugzilla tickets. > Where may I be able to stop this mess? > Until this functionality is merged into pagure's

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:23:01 +0300, Vascom wrote: > No way. > You can add comaintainer for EPEL builds of your packages. That can't be right. Who has made me the "owner" of claws-mail in EPEL? And why?

Re: Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Vascom
No way. You can add comaintainer for EPEL builds of your packages. чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 12:13, Michael Schwendt : > > I don't do EPEL packaging. I never signed up as an "owner" of EPEL packages. > I don't want to be the new default owner of EPEL bugzilla tickets. > Where may I be able to stop

Fedora pagure confusion wrt EPEL

2020-01-30 Thread Michael Schwendt
I don't do EPEL packaging. I never signed up as an "owner" of EPEL packages. I don't want to be the new default owner of EPEL bugzilla tickets. Where may I be able to stop this mess? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe