Jesse Keating wrote:
I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official
built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat
difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and
don't realize that the real live code is actually on a branch.
At
ons 2009-12-23 klockan 14:32 -0800 skrev Jesse Keating:
I don't expect
that I'd have to go hunting down where the commit hash for the previous
build came from, then try to discover which branch that commit hash
currently lives on, so that I can commit on top of it and keep going.
Automate it
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about scratch builds?
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about scratch builds?
What about them? Scratch
On 12/23/2009 09:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about
On Dec 23, 2009, at 7:20, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from
main
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about scratch builds?
On Dec 23, 2009, at 7:38, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On 12/23/2009 09:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are
Jarod Wilson wrote:
On 12/22/09 2:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
And as I wrote before, I don't like this at all, it's a regression from
our current workflow
Define our.
Our current workflow = what Fedora's current CVS setup allows.
In my personal opinion, Jesse is spot-on, we should NOT
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 19:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The whole problem is that such branches do not exist at all in the new git
setup!
If you get eaten by raptors, you can't expect another maintainer to come
in after you and have to dig around for a private branch to update a
build.
On 12/23/09 3:21 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 19:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The whole problem is that such branches do not exist at all in the new git
setup!
If you get eaten by raptors, you can't expect another maintainer to come
in after you and have to dig around
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:46 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Okay, we've definitely got some slight misunderstanding here... :)
I was objecting to Kevin's suggestion that we should be able to build
official packages from branches named ^private-*. But building from a
branch tagged something
I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official
built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat
difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and
don't realize that the real live code is actually on a branch.
Surely all previous
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:23 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official
built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat
difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and
don't realize that the real
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:59:53 -0800
Josh Stone jist...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/21/2009 06:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has been done. The way the ACLs now work, if you are a
packager, you can create branches in any package that start with
private-. This makes it even easier to pass
On 12/22/09 2:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Nobody should be able to create any branches that do not start with
private-.
I really don't see the point of this, why can't we just allow any branch
name that isn't a reserved name (master or F-[0-9]+)?
We'll make sure that
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Jarod Wilson wrote:
On 12/22/09 2:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Nobody should be able to create any branches that do not start with
private-.
I really don't see the point of this, why can't we just allow any branch
name that isn't a reserved name
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 18:59 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
Perhaps this should be locked down to private-$USERNAME-*? Otherwise,
anyone could push into a branch that I'm trying to work with.
Also, I wasn't able to delete a branch that I had pushed -- not sure if
you meant to allow that.
If the
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 14:02 +0100, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:59:53 -0800
Josh Stone jist...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/21/2009 06:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has been done. The way the ACLs now work, if you are a
packager, you can create branches in any
On 12/22/2009 08:09 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 18:59 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
Perhaps this should be locked down to private-$USERNAME-*? Otherwise,
anyone could push into a branch that I'm trying to work with.
Also, I wasn't able to delete a branch that I had pushed --
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 08:41 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
On 12/22/2009 08:09 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 18:59 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
Perhaps this should be locked down to private-$USERNAME-*? Otherwise,
anyone could push into a branch that I'm trying to work with.
2009/12/21 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com:
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 05:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So what do you suggest doing in such a case? Temporarily reverting the F-n
branch to the old release, build, then bump it up again? This sounds really
suboptimal to me (in addition to being a
Jesse Keating wrote:
Treat the origin/F-?? as the master for that release, do your long
running not immediately ready for build work on topic branches thereof
and only merge them when you're ready to build.
This requires us to know in advance that the work will be long running. In
my
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 19:56 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Treat the origin/F-?? as the master for that release, do your long
running not immediately ready for build work on topic branches thereof
and only merge them when you're ready to build.
This requires us to know
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 19:31 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 10:28 +0100, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
Currently, it appears that I can push arbitrarily named branches, at
least if the package does not have per branch ACLs:
Yes, that makes sense given the way the ACL
On 12/21/2009 06:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has been done. The way the ACLs now work, if you are a packager,
you can create branches in any package that start with private-. This
makes it even easier to pass changes around as you can tell the
maintainer to pull from or merge from a
Jesse Keating wrote:
Nobody should be able to create any branches that do not start with
private-.
I really don't see the point of this, why can't we just allow any branch
name that isn't a reserved name (master or F-[0-9]+)?
We'll make sure that the buildsystem will not allow any official
Jesse Keating wrote:
We definitely want to allow topic branches pushed to the main repo. I
think we'll have to agree on a namespace to use for these, perhaps
following the dist-cvs example and call them private-*
What about build branches? Let's say you have these committed to the F-12
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:56:57 -0800
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
We definitely want to allow topic branches pushed to the main repo. I
think we'll have to agree on a namespace to use for these, perhaps
following the dist-cvs example and call them private-*
private/* would have the
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 09:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Either way, you want to branch from an old revision, create new ones in the
branch, and, what's different from a private topic branch, build the
packages from the branch for dist-f12-updates-candidate and eventually queue
them in Bodhi.
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 10:28 +0100, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
Currently, it appears that I can push arbitrarily named branches, at
least if the package does not have per branch ACLs:
Yes, that makes sense given the way the ACL system works, it just wasn't
fully expected by me. A small
Jesse Keating wrote:
I'm not a real fan of allowing official builds to happen from branches
like this.
So what do you suggest doing in such a case? Temporarily reverting the F-n
branch to the old release, build, then bump it up again? This sounds really
suboptimal to me (in addition to being
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 05:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So what do you suggest doing in such a case? Temporarily reverting the F-n
branch to the old release, build, then bump it up again? This sounds really
suboptimal to me (in addition to being a regression from our current CVS
setup, which
On 12/19/2009 12:31 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git clone ssh://[fedoraacco...@]pkgs.fedoraproject.org/package
will get you a cone via ssh, in which you can git pull and git
2009/12/18 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com:
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git clone ssh://[fedoraacco...@]pkgs.fedoraproject.org/package
will get you a cone via ssh, in which you can git pull and
2009/12/19 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com:
I checked out emacs-vm and the commited and pushed a change to the
spec file and was quite surprised to find that the change was pushed
to all branches. Is that intended ?
Er, ignore that, I was confusing myself.
--
On Dec 19, 2009, at 8:42, Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/12/18 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com:
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git clone
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git clone ssh://[fedoraacco...@]pkgs.fedoraproject.org/package
will get you a cone via
On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 12:41 -0500, Ray Strode wrote:
So one thing I tried is to create a custom topic branch (a la private-
branches in pkgs cvs), and pushing it failed.
Is this something we want to support? Or should topic branches be
pushed to separate private respositories?
We
Hi,
We definitely want to allow topic branches pushed to the main repo. I
think we'll have to agree on a namespace to use for these, perhaps
following the dist-cvs example and call them private-*
The way the ACL system works is that it matches on the refs you're
pushing up, so for packages
Sorry, if I missed this in previous messages...
Are the cvs tags going to become git tags, or git branches? When I
checked out ~48 hours ago, it seemed like everything was a git branch,
which is not what I expected for the build tags.
kernel.org admins recommend either 'git tag -a' or 'git
On Dec 19, 2009, at 15:02, Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com wrote:
Sorry, if I missed this in previous messages...
Are the cvs tags going to become git tags, or git branches? When I
checked out ~48 hours ago, it seemed like everything was a git
branch, which is not what I expected for the
On 12/19/2009 08:04 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Dec 19, 2009, at 15:02, Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com wrote:
Sorry, if I missed this in previous messages...
Are the cvs tags going to become git tags, or git branches? When I
checked out ~48 hours ago, it seemed like everything was a git
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git clone ssh://[fedoraacco...@]pkgs.fedoraproject.org/package
will get you a cone via ssh, in which you can git pull and git push.
The repos are the same from phase1,
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:31:49 -0800
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git clone ssh://[fedoraacco...@]pkgs.fedoraproject.org/package
git clone
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:37, Hans Ulrich Niedermann h...@n-
dimensional.de wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:31:49 -0800
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Phase two, write access with ACLs, is ready for testing. Please not
that URLs have changed since my original announcement.
git
45 matches
Mail list logo
