On 11/25/2014 05:32 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote: > On 11/25/2014 10:07 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: >> >> On 11/25/2014 09:47 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote: >>> On 11/25/2014 09:30 AM, Honza Horak wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> this is related to the new SCL SIG [1], which is supposed to bring SCL >>>> development into CentOS, which is supposed to become upstream for >>>> Software Collections. >>>> >>>> I've promised I'd look at how dist-git could look like on CentOS side, >>>> since we want to start keeping source code for SCLs under CentOS soon. >>>> >>>> So, [2] is a proposal -- please, take a look at it, so we have >>>> something to start with. Let's see if it is feasible. >>>> >>>> We can also move it to CentOS wiki, which would be more appropriate >>>> place for it, but I cannot figure out a where I have permissions to >>>> add some new content to. >>>> >>>> More information about Software Collections concepts is available at >>>> [3]. >>>> >>>> What next? I think we should gather some feedback on this proposal, >>>> try to figure out open questions there. Then we will pick up some >>>> software collection and create some PoC build from CentOS dist-git. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Honza >>>> >>>> [1] http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo >>>> [2] >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal >>>> >>>> [3] https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/docs/guide/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CentOS-devel mailing list >>>> CentOS-devel at centos.org >>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel >>> My primary concern with [2] is how it integrates with the existing SCLs >>> withing git.c.o. [4] >> The existing (rhscl)SCL code on g.c.o won't change. This would add new >> branches to existing packages, and create some new packages with scl-* >> branch names unless they find their way into rhscl as well. The C6, C7 >> branch names are protected. >> >>> As a downstream consumer, I would prefer not to rebuild my workflow. >> With this method, you shouldn't have to. >> >> >>> [4] a few quick examples: >>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!mysql55-mysql >>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!nodejs010-nodejs-mongodb >>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!postgresql92-postgresql >>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!python33-mod_wsgi >>> >> As I understand it, these would get a branch name like scl-mysql55 where >> the software-collections.org maintainers would have branch level commit >> access. Things in the c7 branch would be left untouched. >> >> Does that help to answer your questions? Does this method impact your >> current workflow? >> > > I may be reading it incorrectly, but my reading of [5] has, for example > the mysql55 collection, branched off of 'mysql' whereas the existing > RHSCL is branched off of 'mysql55-mysql'. > > Would these repos be under a different "git.c.o Project"? Yes, at least according to my understanding. Honza > Right now I just track 'c7' and (eventually) 'c6'/'c5'. > > With the existing RHSCL packages in a 'c7' branch, though they are not > built, I guess I'm mostly reaching for something on the RHSCL package > repo/nameing/branch/etc as it relates to the SCL SIG. While I know the > aim of this SIG right now is just about upstream scl.org, I'm trying to > get the big picture as the parts inter-relate. > > > I'm not opposed to workflow adjustment for cleaner > repo/branch/namespace/thing on git.c.o, right now we use > centos.git.repolist.py from centos-git-common. > > Pat > > > [5] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal#Repositories_naming > (and following) >