Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 702696 - Temporarily Disable "missing Signed-off-by on commit" Hook on forums.git
Summary: Temporarily Disable "missing Signed-off-by on commit" Hook on forums.git
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Infrastructure
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Git (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal
Assignee: Gentoo Infrastructure
URL: git+ssh://git@git.gentoo.org/proj/for...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 685022
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2019-12-13 15:36 UTC by John R. Graham
Modified: 2023-06-20 11:59 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John R. Graham gentoo-dev 2019-12-13 15:36:15 UTC
In support of the Forums upgrade, we've incorporating a copy of the upstream phpBB git repo into our Gentoo-hosted repo. However, the "missing Signed-off-by on commit" is interfering with subsequent updates.

I understand that a solution is being discussed in bug #685022 where references would incorporate "upstream" in order to be exempt. Would be happy to comply with that; in fact, I was in the process of pushing a new reference consistent with that proposal when I was stymied by the hook.

Is it okay to get that hook temporarily disabled on our repo until a permanent resolution is agreed on?
Comment 1 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2019-12-13 16:24:36 UTC
The resolution is to use fork/ namespace for things we're forking off upstream.
Comment 2 John R. Graham gentoo-dev 2019-12-13 16:27:40 UTC
Like refs/heads/fork/bla ?
Comment 3 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2019-12-13 16:29:56 UTC
No, like git.gentoo.org:fork/whatever.
Comment 4 John R. Graham gentoo-dev 2019-12-13 17:23:15 UTC
I'm arguing for a different approach in bug #685002 but, since git repositories are so malleable, I'm more than willing to work with your recommendation, at least for now. 

Can this bug stand in for a request for a new repo, named fork/phpbb.git with write permissions for:
- john_r_graham
- desultory
- jmbsvicetto
- chiitoo
Comment 5 John R. Graham gentoo-dev 2019-12-13 17:24:35 UTC
(In reply to John R. Graham from comment #4)
> I'm arguing for a different approach in bug #685022 but, since git
> repositories are so malleable, I'm more than willing to work with your
> recommendation, at least for now. 
> 
> Can this bug stand in for a request for a new repo, named fork/phpbb.git
> with write permissions for:
> - john_r_graham
> - desultory
> - jmbsvicetto
> - chiitoo

Ugh. Bug number corrected above.
Comment 6 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2019-12-16 19:08:06 UTC
Robin suggested that we can disable the hook for the push.  However, since we can't disable it for just one repo and the last time we disabled it entirely caused quite a mayhem, I'd prefer if you told me what to push and I would disable it, push and reenable afterwards.
Comment 7 John R. Graham gentoo-dev 2023-06-19 21:09:42 UTC
Alas, I became too busy at my day job to successfully pursue this project.
Comment 8 Chiitoo gentoo-dev 2023-06-20 11:59:53 UTC
I don't remember what exactly we were doing that would have required this, but at this time I don't see there being a need to fork the upstream repo at all.

Most customisation will be (and has already been done) in the styles, unless I forget something but I don't think I am forgetting something right now.  :]