[EPEL-devel] Re: Playground policy
On 01. 05. 20 21:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I'd like to look at seeing if we can accomplish what we wanted with playground by having it just inherit from epel8. As a drive-by epel contributor, this would work so much better for me. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Playground policy
On 5/1/20 12:39 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There was no 'rule' but the intent was everyone would keep the package.cfg and build for both. If they were not making any playground changes, they didn't need to commit anything, and fedpkg build would just build for both epel8 and epel8-playground. The problem is that the packages.cfg commit annoys everyone who does a 'merge origin/master' because it's not on the master branch, so they delete it to get their workflow back. I'd like to look at seeing if we can accomplish what we wanted with playground by having it just inherit from epel8. Failing that, we could just look at dropping playground if it's not useful for people. Yeah, having epel8-playground automatically inherit from epel8 would solve a lot of issues, it seems. I personally don't mind merging from master -- I don't want to build every Fedora revision for EPEL -- but I can understand how some maintainers might prefer otherwise. The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the epel8 branch contains package.cfg by default. That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8 branch and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe the committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request that a branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch? There's no force-push allowed. They likely just deleted it and are merging master over it. Interesting. Could you help take a look at - python-mimeparse - python-testscenarios and help figure out how epel8 and master end up sharing a history? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keybase.io/michel_slm chat via email: https://delta.chat/ GPG key: 96A7 A6ED FB4D 2113 4056 3257 CAF9 AD10 ACB1 BEF2 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Playground policy
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 10:48:54AM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > On 5/1/20 1:10 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:32:26PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > Generally speaking (I can make this a separate thread if that helps) - do > > > we > > > expect every package in EPEL8 to also be built for EPEL8-playground, > > > either > > > through package.cfg or by building directly from the epel8-playground > > > branch? > > > > There is no such rule, but in my opinion, it is welcomed for exactly the > > terrible > > experience anybody gets when he tries to use epel8-playground. > > > Right, but if some package repos are missing packages.cfg and the maintainer > does not build it separately for epel8-playground, it is a terrible > experience for other packages depending on this missing package -- everytime > the maintainer submits an epel8 build, the epel8-playground target will > report a build failure. There was no 'rule' but the intent was everyone would keep the package.cfg and build for both. If they were not making any playground changes, they didn't need to commit anything, and fedpkg build would just build for both epel8 and epel8-playground. The problem is that the packages.cfg commit annoys everyone who does a 'merge origin/master' because it's not on the master branch, so they delete it to get their workflow back. I'd like to look at seeing if we can accomplish what we wanted with playground by having it just inherit from epel8. Failing that, we could just look at dropping playground if it's not useful for people. > > The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the > > epel8 > > branch contains package.cfg by default. > > > That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg > request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8 branch > and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe the > committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request that a > branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch? There's no force-push allowed. They likely just deleted it and are merging master over it. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Playground policy
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > > On 5/1/20 1:10 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:32:26PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > >> Generally speaking (I can make this a separate thread if that helps) - do > >> we > >> expect every package in EPEL8 to also be built for EPEL8-playground, either > >> through package.cfg or by building directly from the epel8-playground > >> branch? > > > > There is no such rule, but in my opinion, it is welcomed for exactly the > > terrible > > experience anybody gets when he tries to use epel8-playground. > > > Right, but if some package repos are missing packages.cfg and the > maintainer does not build it separately for epel8-playground, it is a > terrible experience for other packages depending on this missing package > -- everytime the maintainer submits an epel8 build, the epel8-playground > target will report a build failure. > > > The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the > > epel8 > > branch contains package.cfg by default. > > > That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg > request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8 > branch and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe > the committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request > that a branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch? > I prefer my EPEL branches to be this way when possible. And it's simple enough to do fedpkg clone cd fedpkg switch-branch epel8 git merge master fedpkg push Nothing fancy about it, as long as you are the maintainer of the epel branch. Troy ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Playground policy
On 5/1/20 1:10 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:32:26PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: Generally speaking (I can make this a separate thread if that helps) - do we expect every package in EPEL8 to also be built for EPEL8-playground, either through package.cfg or by building directly from the epel8-playground branch? There is no such rule, but in my opinion, it is welcomed for exactly the terrible experience anybody gets when he tries to use epel8-playground. Right, but if some package repos are missing packages.cfg and the maintainer does not build it separately for epel8-playground, it is a terrible experience for other packages depending on this missing package -- everytime the maintainer submits an epel8 build, the epel8-playground target will report a build failure. The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the epel8 branch contains package.cfg by default. That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8 branch and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe the committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request that a branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch? -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keybase.io/michel_slm chat via email: https://delta.chat/ GPG key: 96A7 A6ED FB4D 2113 4056 3257 CAF9 AD10 ACB1 BEF2 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
