Dne 27.7.2017 v 10:05 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:35:46AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 26.7.2017 v 19:41 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:20:38PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 24.7.2017 v 22:49 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:23:35AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>>> For the curious ones :)
>>>>
https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/pagure/rpms/fedocal
>>> Will there be something replacing
>>>
>>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/vondruch/
>>
https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/pagure/user/vondruch
>>
>> This is likely the closest thing to it.
>>
> Thx
>
> Now I noticed several things:
>
> 1) The graph of my user page shows no activity. Is it just staging
> issue? Is it data import issue? Will it work on production?
The activity log hasn't been filled, we could try doing it but that will take a
really long time as it would have to run through each commits in all the repos.
However, new activity should show up just fine.
New activity is probably enough.
> 2) The "contributors" list does not appear to be correct. Looking at
> "ruby", there is listed "tagoh" user, who is in pkgdb
"Obsolete" on all
> branches. Is it old data on staging? Not sure when he was obsoleted in
> pkgdb ....
The timeline shows he was obsoleted in December 2016,
Ah, I knew the information must be visible somewhere. This leads me to
question is similar information accessible in pagure somewhere? ;)
But anyway, I was not sure about the age of the data in staging, since
for example the ruby repo says it was "created 19h ago" and the "recent
commit in master committed 8 months ago". This does not corresponds with
the official dist-git (actually neither the repo age nor the recent commit).
Looking at f26 branch [1], the last commit is from 12 years ago? The
branch was created around 1st of March, so what is the content?
[1]
https://src.stg.fedoraproject.org/pagure/rpms/ruby/commits/f26
the data in pagure is from
yesterday (I keep running the script to add/test more things), so I think you
found a bug in this script.
I'll dig into this, thanks!
> 3) How are the "groups" handled? Looking at "rubygem-puma", there
is not
> the "group::ruby-packagers-sig" listed (might be old data, since neither
> I am listed). But trying to lookup nodejs or npm, which are owned by
> "group::nodejs-sig", these two are not available at all. Tried several
> others from top of the list of packages of this group, non appears to be
> available in pagure (?!?).
This is odd, thanks for noticing.
YAW
V.