1 |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Doug Freed <dwfreed@×××.edu> wrote: |
2 |
> At some point, the repoman manifest-check, or some variation of it, |
3 |
> will probably get added to a post-receive hook, which will then abort |
4 |
> your push if you try to push something that would break the conversion |
5 |
> process. That said, you should still be doing your due diligence to |
6 |
> ensure that eventual hook doesn't yell at you. |
7 |
|
8 |
This sounds like a much better strategy to me. We're expecting people |
9 |
to check things that should be easy to check for machines. Yes, some |
10 |
people (like myself) will always use repoman to commit, but it would |
11 |
be much better if something this important (because it basically |
12 |
delays other updates to users everywhere) is checked by an automated |
13 |
process for every push, and disallows pushes like this. |
14 |
|
15 |
> I can see if it's something I need to fix with my code. But it's been |
16 |
> a while since that's been the case, so all the failures these days are |
17 |
> primarily for the previously mentioned issues. |
18 |
|
19 |
That makes sense. My other comment initially reading your email would |
20 |
be, send those emails to gentoo-core or -project or whatever. If |
21 |
others don't get to feel the pain (of every half-hour error emails, |
22 |
for example), they will be much less compelled to fix the problem. So |
23 |
absorbing this "pain" into just you or infra makes us less scalable as |
24 |
a distribution, and less likely that someone will feel motivated to |
25 |
add the extra bits of automation (like a git hook) that will make this |
26 |
problem go away. |
27 |
|
28 |
Cheers, |
29 |
|
30 |
Dirkjan |