On Oct 22 23:19, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Brian Stinson bstinson@ksu.edu wrote:
Hi All,
In the CBS/Infra meeting on Monday we agreed to start a discussion here on the mailing list about how to handle "ad-hoc" upstreams. An ad-hoc upstream could best be described as a project we would like to ship that is developed within the CentOS community (centpkg is one example).
Is there some reason the work cannot or should not go into getting the packages into Fedora and EPEL? I realize there's a much more professional relationship with RHEL now that git.centos.org is the RHEL 7 publication repo, and that EPEL will not publish tools that overlap with RHEL upstream and thus overlap with CentOS, for a lot of very good reasons.
Developers of an ad-hoc upstream need some extra infra (e.g. a git repo for doing active development) in addition to the dist-git repo on git.centos.org where the package specs live.
I would like to start the policy and procedure discussion with the following proposals:
Host the ad-hoc development repositories on git.centos.org in separate Gitblit projects
Host the ad-hoc development repositories on Github, linked to the CentOS project group
Host the ad-hoc development repositories someplace else?
Thanks! Brian
It takes some work if you're overlapping the core OS packages, work that I'm sure CentOS developers are familiar with. I personally publish toolsl for that for RT version 4 and Samba version 4 at https://github.com/nkadel/.
I can't speak for the others who were looking for this sort of workflow, but it makes sense to host upstream development (that is, the day-to-day commits) for Centpkg and centos-packager someplace the CentOS project controls.
Originally I was in favor of having the stuff we develop go in separate projects on git.c.o but that may end up being extra administrative work for the infra team.
Brian
-- Brian Stinson bstinson@ksu.edu | IRC: bstinson | Bitbucket/Twitter: bstinsonmhk