AgreeThank you.
See below
Leslie Satenstein
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 01:35:13 p.m. EST, kevin
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 09:15:18AM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:50 AM Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> > This is not a good idea. Because of a few packa
Am Do., 18. Jan. 2024 um 17:14 Uhr schrieb Jerry James :
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > You got mass rebuild script here [1] in massrebuildsinfo.py [2] you may
> > define what packages you are going to rebuild , in line 93 of mass-
> > rebuild.py [3] you got the list
On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 09:13 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > You got mass rebuild script here [1] in massrebuildsinfo.py [2] you
> > may
> > define what packages you are going to rebuild , in line 93 of
> > mass-
> > rebuild.py [3] you got the
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 08:24:38PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
>
> If, hypothetically, a defect in the mass-rebuild script would corrupt
> thousands of spec files, how easy would it be to write a mass-revert
> script to repair the damage? The mass-revert script shouldn't just
> revert the latest c
kevin wrote:
> The mass rebuild is only doing a bump/rebuild. There's no reason it
> should ever cause something that be caught by the hook, and if it did,
> it would be better for it to do the commit anyhow and cause a failed
> build. IMHO.
If, hypothetically, a defect in the mass-rebuild script
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 09:15:18AM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:50 AM Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> > This is not a good idea. Because of a few packages that are not rebuilding
> > we would disable the hook for every push the script does.
>
> My thinking is that the hook is not u
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:50 AM Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> This is not a good idea. Because of a few packages that are not rebuilding we
> would disable the hook for every push the script does.
My thinking is that the hook is not useful for automated build scripts
anyway, so disabling it doesn't hurt.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:48 PM kevin wrote:
> I suppose this might be a good idea... I'd be afraid of what it might
> break, while fixing the fonts packages though. But of course if it was
> completely broken it would fail after that anyhow...
That's exactly my thinking. The package is either b
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> You got mass rebuild script here [1] in massrebuildsinfo.py [2] you may
> define what packages you are going to rebuild , in line 93 of mass-
> rebuild.py [3] you got the list of packages that you go rebuild
> and since line 132 [4] you have t
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:52 PM Jerry James wrote:
> Given the problems we had with font packages not being rebuilt in the
> last mass rebuild, can we ensure that the mass rebuild script uses
> "git push --no-verify" instead of plain "git push"?
>
This is not a good idea. Because of a few packa
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:50:43PM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> Given the problems we had with font packages not being rebuilt in the
> last mass rebuild, can we ensure that the mass rebuild script uses
> "git push --no-verify" instead of plain "git push"?
>
> See:
> - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/s
On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 14:50 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> Given the problems we had with font packages not being rebuilt in the
> last mass rebuild, can we ensure that the mass rebuild script uses
> "git push --no-verify" instead of plain "git push"?
>
> See:
> - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug
Given the problems we had with font packages not being rebuilt in the
last mass rebuild, can we ensure that the mass rebuild script uses
"git push --no-verify" instead of plain "git push"?
See:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233878
-
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/d
13 matches
Mail list logo
