Is the extras_signers group in FAS still needed for anything?
Is it still used for ownership of any files on buildsys.fedoraproject.org?
(e.g. the pushscript cvs checkout) If so, can't the same files be owned by
the epel_signers? In either case, I no longer seem to be able to access those
files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] audacity]$ cvs commit -m 'mention upstream plans on
1.3.6-beta' README
Access denied: mschwendt is not in ACL for rpms/audacity
cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed
cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first!
That used to work. I'm co-maintainer:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Is the extras_signers group in FAS still needed for anything?
Is it still used for ownership of any files on buildsys.fedoraproject.org?
(e.g. the pushscript cvs checkout) If so, can't the same files be owned by
the epel_signers? In either case, I
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] audacity]$ cvs commit -m 'mention upstream plans on
1.3.6-beta' README
Access denied: mschwendt is not in ACL for rpms/audacity
cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed
cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first!
That
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:30:30 -0500 (CDT), Mike McGrath wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] audacity]$ cvs commit -m 'mention upstream plans on
1.3.6-beta' README
Access denied: mschwendt is not in ACL for rpms/audacity
cvs commit: Pre-commit
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:27:36PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Hello,
This question is asked in the context of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pertusus/Draft_keeping_infra_open_for_EOL
which has not already been approved by FESCO, so this could have no
follow-up, though I think that
So I was going through some old tickets and stumbled across this:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/164
I gave it a quick look over and I'm not against this integration but I'm
generally apathetic about it. So I ask if anyone here is interested
enough to get it into Fedora.
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
So I was going through some old tickets and stumbled across this:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/164
I gave it a quick look over and I'm not against this integration but I'm
generally apathetic about it. So I
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
So I was going through some old tickets and stumbled across this:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/164
I gave it a quick look over and I'm not against this integration but I'm
generally apathetic about it. So I
