FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:29 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 16:19:08 +0100,
Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Whilst it is possible to maintain such a git branch at
> fedorahosted.org it would suffer from a lack of integration with the
> upstream branch hosted on GitHub itself.

Wouldn't make more sense for maintainers to either get their own github
accounts or just keep a local checkout of upstreams they are interested in
so that they can work easier with upstreams?

The form of patches used in rpms doesn't really match what upstreams would
need, so i am not sure what a project repo in github would provide that
maintainers can't get on their own?
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:37 PM
Christopher Meng
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

Well.This is not repoforge.Please dont take more difficulty to the developers

On 2/1/12, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 16:19:08 +0100,
> Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Whilst it is possible to maintain such a git branch at
>> fedorahosted.org it would suffer from a lack of integration with the
>> upstream branch hosted on GitHub itself.
>
> Wouldn't make more sense for maintainers to either get their own github
> accounts or just keep a local checkout of upstreams they are interested in
> so that they can work easier with upstreams?
>
> The form of patches used in rpms doesn't really match what upstreams would
> need, so i am not sure what a project repo in github would provide that
> maintainers can't get on their own?
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


--


Best Regards,
Christopher Meng------'Cicku'

My personal blog is http://cicku.me,hope you can visit and say something
about it.
More Contact info see here:http://about.me/cicku
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:42 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On 02/01/2012 09:19 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:

Hello members of the Board,

I would like to petition the Board to endorse
https://github.com/fedoraproject as a secondary outlet of hosted code.

...

I do say that Fedora should endorse and administrate the account


So, let's try not to complicate the issue here.

We all had a chat in #fedora-advisory-board earlier, and the primary
request here is for trademark approval, so that the disclaimer "This
site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Fedora Project" can be
removed.


that addresses the "endorse" part.

As to the second part "administrate the account", that's not in the
board's ability to do so. I'd suggest you (those making this request)
be the one's empowered to take such responsibility.


-- rex
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:50 PM
Carlo de Wolf
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On 02/01/2012 04:29 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 16:19:08 +0100,
Carlo de Wolf<cdewolf@redhat.com> wrote:

Whilst it is possible to maintain such a git branch at
fedorahosted.org it would suffer from a lack of integration with the
upstream branch hosted on GitHub itself.

Wouldn't make more sense for maintainers to either get their own github
accounts or just keep a local checkout of upstreams they are interested in
so that they can work easier with upstreams?


That works, until you get to a point where both upstream developers and
packagers need to work together.


https://github.com/fedoraproject/jboss-as/commit/47a33041eb75290629fec7869604f39c19881366
is something an upstream developer can work with right away.


https://github.com/fedoraproject/jboss-as-rpm/blob/master/SOURCES/0002-Fix-initd-script.patch
is something only useful and usable by rpmbuild. (Note that this repo
must be relocated to pkgs.fedoraproject.org.)


Still not that big of an issue until you get multiple upstream
developers and packagers that need to do a concentrated effort on a
single piece.




The form of patches used in rpms doesn't really match what upstreams would
need, so i am not sure what a project repo in github would provide that
maintainers can't get on their own?


People started to ask if they could work of
https://github.com/wolfc/jboss-as/tree/fedora17. Which I think is wrong,
because that is my personal repo.


We should have a collaborated jboss-as fedora17 branch somewhere.

Carlo
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:52 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 16:50:49 +0100,
Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf@redhat.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 16:19:08 +0100,
> > Carlo de Wolf<cdewolf@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>Whilst it is possible to maintain such a git branch at
> >>fedorahosted.org it would suffer from a lack of integration with the
> >>upstream branch hosted on GitHub itself.
> >Wouldn't make more sense for maintainers to either get their own github
> >accounts or just keep a local checkout of upstreams they are interested in
> >so that they can work easier with upstreams?
>
> That works, until you get to a point where both upstream developers
> and packagers need to work together.

Packagers can still ask for upstream commit access.

> https://github.com/fedoraproject/jboss-as/commit/47a33041eb75290629fec7869604f39c19881366
> is something an upstream developer can work with right away.
>
> https://github.com/fedoraproject/jboss-as-rpm/blob/master/SOURCES/0002-Fix-initd-script.patch
> is something only useful and usable by rpmbuild. (Note that this
> repo must be relocated to pkgs.fedoraproject.org.)

That's more or less what I said. That's why I don't see a reason for Fedora
to have their own github mirror.

However even if a packager can't get upstream commit access they can still
keep a local checkout of the upstream repo and use that for both creating
patches for Fedora and for sending patches back upstream (either having
thir own git server or emailing patches created using git).
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2012, 02:58 PM
Richard Shaw
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> wrote:
> However even if a packager can't get upstream commit access they can still
> keep a local checkout of the upstream repo and use that for both creating
> patches for Fedora and for sending patches back upstream (either having
> thir own git server or emailing patches created using git).

I've been working with several github projects and I believe the
preferred method (if the patches are upstreamable) is to create a fork
of the github project, create a branch in your fork, and then do a
pull request to get upstream to evaluate your patch. It's a little
convoluted, especially if you haven't acclimated to the way git works,
but it does work well.

Richard
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2012, 03:04 PM
Carlo de Wolf
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On 02/01/2012 04:58 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno@wolff.to> wrote:

However even if a packager can't get upstream commit access they can still
keep a local checkout of the upstream repo and use that for both creating
patches for Fedora and for sending patches back upstream (either having
thir own git server or emailing patches created using git).

I've been working with several github projects and I believe the
preferred method (if the patches are upstreamable) is to create a fork
of the github project, create a branch in your fork, and then do a
pull request to get upstream to evaluate your patch. It's a little
convoluted, especially if you haven't acclimated to the way git works,
but it does work well.

Richard
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


True.

Non-upstreamable patches like
https://github.com/fedoraproject/jboss-as/commit/7aa8fee7fb6b50270dc8b95be9c1ba08e579b3ad
however still require collaboration.
Both in terms of evaluating functional loss by upstream developers (in
this case it's a minor thing) and further enhancement by packagers.


Carlo
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-06-2012, 03:42 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On IRC, someone brought up another point: github is not opensource.

The Board hasn't yet written down an exact policy regarding using
opensource for third party resources but I suspect if we drafted a
policy and held a vote it would look something like this at the
moment: "When using third party services, we should use open source
alternatives when they are available."

So another question to be considered is whether github provides a
service that isn't available from other, open source third-parties.

-Toshio

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2012 04:58 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno@wolff.to> *wrote:
>>>
>>> However even if a packager can't get upstream commit access they can
>>> still
>>> keep a local checkout of the upstream repo and use that for both creating
>>> patches for Fedora and for sending patches back upstream (either having
>>> thir own git server or emailing patches created using git).
>>
>> I've been working with several github projects and I believe the
>> preferred method (if the patches are upstreamable) is to create a fork
>> of the github project, create a branch in your fork, and then do a
>> pull request to get upstream to evaluate your patch. It's a little
>> convoluted, especially if you haven't acclimated to the way git works,
>> but it does work well.
>>
>> Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> advisory-board mailing list
>> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>
>
> True.
>
> Non-upstreamable patches like
> https://github.com/fedoraproject/jboss-as/commit/7aa8fee7fb6b50270dc8b95be9c1ba08e579b3ad
> however still require collaboration.
> Both in terms of evaluating functional loss by upstream developers (in this
> case it's a minor thing) and further enhancement by packagers.
>
> Carlo
>
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-06-2012, 09:20 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On 2/6/12 8:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

So another question to be considered is whether github provides a
service that isn't available from other, open source third-parties.


gitorious being the closest open source alternative.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 02-06-2012, 09:30 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:20:25 -0800
Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2/6/12 8:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > So another question to be considered is whether github provides a
> > service that isn't available from other, open source third-parties.
>
> gitorious being the closest open source alternative.
>

What about gitlabhq?


-sv
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org