| 1 |
On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;) |
| 3 |
> it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse to |
| 4 |
> even commit if there's something obviously wrong |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality in |
| 7 |
terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be run as a |
| 8 |
git hook which would cause push failures on certain classes of bad |
| 9 |
commits. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> as you write below, it's just a matter of checking exit status and |
| 12 |
> using git, which can be done by scripting, but the script is standard |
| 13 |
> (*) and mandated to be part of the workflow |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> it also allows to check or templatize commit messages to follow policy |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Technically pkgcheck supports more git-related checks than repoman last |
| 18 |
I checked, i.e. result keywords including BadCommitSummary, |
| 19 |
DirectStableKeywords, DroppedUnstableKeywords, DroppedStableKeywords, |
| 20 |
DirectNoMaintainer, and MissingSignOff; with possible future additions |
| 21 |
such as warning when modifying deps in an ebuild without revbumping. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Futhermore, one can scan against all commits in parallel via `pkgcheck |
| 24 |
scan --commits` which will enable potential commit results that are |
| 25 |
otherwise skipped. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Anyway, my main point is that if someone really wants commit |
| 28 |
functionality it's semi-trivial to script something similar to what |
| 29 |
repoman does (assuming exit status/api support exists) and if it's |
| 30 |
decent enough quality (including tests) I'd probably consider adding it |
| 31 |
to the pkgcheck repo. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Tim |
Archives