On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 18:26 +0200, Ben Rosser wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:29 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon
<pingou(a)pingoured.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:46:32PM +0200, Ben Rosser wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:29 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
wrote:
> > > There is a clear initial rejection of a PR-only contribution model. I hear
that
> > > and that may mean that we never go this way. I'm honestly fine with
that :)
> > > I do want to see why that is a show-stopper and if we can find ways to not
have
> > > it be a show-stopper.
> > >
> > > When we work on upstream projects, I think it's pretty standard now to
always go
> > > via PRs, even for your own branch.
> > > So that tests are run, so that other member of the community can see,
comment,
> > > review the change.
> > > What is so different in Fedora that we cannot move to this model?
> > > Is it a tooling issue?
> > > Is it something else?
> >
> > Most packages in Fedora are effectively one-person projects (modulo
> > rebuild scripts and other automated tooling). My experience when
> > working on a personal project is that I don't use PRs for changes even
> > if I do develop a change in a branch, rather than master; it's a lot
> > of unnecessary overhead. There are no "other members" of the
> > community. No one is reviewing the change other than me.
>
> Would this change if the PR was automatically tested for you without you having
> to do anything?
No, not really? For a personal project, a continuous integration
system can be set up to run tests on _all_ of my commits, regardless
of whether or not they're to master or to a development branch. What's
the benefit of creating a pull request here?
That being said, packages are slightly different. If it wasn't
necessary to use the web interface to make a pull request and if
fedpkg could do it for me [1], and automatically merge it when the
build succeeds... that might be nice. But if manual work is required
to create a pull request-- filling out a form on Pagure, manually
forking a project, etc.-- I think it's a lot of overhead. And I
wouldn't want to do it for most of my packages.
Ben Rosser
[1] And, in an ideal world, do it without needing an API key but
rather authenticating to Pagure via some other mechanism that doesn't
require manually downloading a key, but I digress...
If we are talking packager
quality of live imporvements, I would vote for this as one of the
improvements - unification of the ~5 methods of authetication one might need to apply when
working
with fedpkg at the moment.
Ideally there should be one method, most likely kerberos, that autheticates the user with
FAS
and should be used for everything. While its true that some of the services (Pagure, COPR)
use
API keys, this should be an implementation detail in this case. You authorize Pagure &
COPR
with your FAS account once (or possibly this happens automatically) and don't have to
care
about API keys unless you are wiritng some automated tool that needs them.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org