| Summary: | p.g.o: Add a visible "Deals with Github pull requests" note on maintainer page | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Websites | Reporter: | Joonas Niilola <juippis> |
| Component: | Packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Packages Website <gpackages> |
| Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | candrews, fturco, marecki, sam |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Joonas Niilola
2020-08-23 12:49:59 UTC
Forgot to add: For packages with multiple maintainers, this could work: If it has a specified "person" with metadata flag turned on, just state "Github pull requests are welcome for this package!", and if it has say a maintainer with metadata flag turned off, and two projects listed, take the first (main) project and calculate probability off that. (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #1) > Forgot to add: For packages with multiple maintainers, this could work: > > If it has a specified "person" with metadata flag turned on, just state > "Github pull requests are welcome for this package!", and if it has say a > maintainer with metadata flag turned off, and two projects listed, take the > first (main) project and calculate probability off that. I think we should: - store this data in LDAP. - Export it with userinfo.xml like we do for other dev data. - consume this data in p.g.o. no wiki deps then. The problem is then do we need to support this metadata for non-devs? They don't have LDAP accounts today. -A (In reply to Alec Warner from comment #2) > > no wiki deps then. The problem is then do we need to support this metadata > for non-devs? They don't have LDAP accounts today. I don't think so, they'll need someone with @gentoo.org address (person, project) to commit for them so this could be mirrored from that @gentoo.org maintainer. And chances are they're working through Github already. Different idea here: How about creating a repository (pgo-metadata or the like) which is writeable by all devs (and proxied maintainers) which contains this kind of data. Like a plain file containing a list of devs that don't accept pull requests. I'm suggesting this approach, as we might also use it for other data as well (as packages / categories that should be excluded from the repology check). That is, there seem to be certain packages / categories whereas the repology check fails nearly always. This way we would bundle all relevant metadata in one place, that is writeable by all devs/proxied maintainers as well as version controlled. (In reply to Max Magorsch from comment #4) > Different idea here: How about creating a repository (pgo-metadata or the > like) which is writeable by all devs (and proxied maintainers) which > contains this kind of data. Like a plain file containing a list of devs that > don't accept pull requests. > > > I'm suggesting this approach, as we might also use it for other data as well > (as packages / categories that should be excluded from the repology check). > That is, there seem to be certain packages / categories whereas the repology > check fails nearly always. > > This way we would bundle all relevant metadata in one place, that is > writeable by all devs/proxied maintainers as well as version controlled. I'd like to make this as easy, simple and as intuitive as possible for the devs. I'd imagine the wiki setting would be fastest and easiest, changing your LDAP preferences by logging to dev.gentoo.org not that bad... but having to clone a repo, search and browse through other metadata to toggle a flag, edit files... I can see it become a bit of a chore, and at this time I don't like the idea. I also believe we're currently trying to overcomplicate things bringing non-dev maintainers into this, as they can't commit anyway, and the @gentoo.org maintainer is in the end responsible what happens to the package. I'm sure it'd make your life a lot easier, but can the flag be gotten somehow from LDAP to your metadata repo? (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #5) > > I'd like to make this as easy, simple and as intuitive as possible for the > devs. I'd imagine the wiki setting would be fastest and easiest, changing > your LDAP preferences by logging to dev.gentoo.org not that bad... but > having to clone a repo, search and browse through other metadata to toggle a > flag, edit files... I can see it become a bit of a chore, and at this time I > don't like the idea. Seeing how repology is growing, maybe it's not that uncommon to think people will have it synced after all. Would there be a way to hide a public list of people who'd enabled/disabled it? Ie not show the file contents in gitweb or mirrors? (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #6) > (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #5) > > > > I'd like to make this as easy, simple and as intuitive as possible for the > > devs. I'd imagine the wiki setting would be fastest and easiest, changing > > your LDAP preferences by logging to dev.gentoo.org not that bad... but > > having to clone a repo, search and browse through other metadata to toggle a > > flag, edit files... I can see it become a bit of a chore, and at this time I > > don't like the idea. > > Seeing how repology is growing, maybe it's not that uncommon to think people > will have it synced after all. > > Would there be a way to hide a public list of people who'd enabled/disabled > it? Ie not show the file contents in gitweb or mirrors? Which information would you especially like to hide here? I mean - correct me if I am mistaking - but after all the information are public on packages.g.o anyway, aren't they? (In reply to Max Magorsch from comment #7) > > Which information would you especially like to hide here? I mean - correct > me if I am mistaking - but after all the information are public on > packages.g.o anyway, aren't they? Yes they are. I can imagine a public list to have benefits and harm to it, but as you said, it's public info anyway... |
