| 1 |
On 06/16/2016 02:51 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 16/06/16 09:39, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 6 |
>> I guess what I mean is these outside developers could continue |
| 7 |
>> hacking and/or breaking things, or whatever else, without worrying |
| 8 |
>> about their "official" branch. We could have a standard that |
| 9 |
>> assumes Gentoo pulls their 'master' branch and they keep other |
| 10 |
>> stuff in 'dev', or some other model. We'll need to decide on *some* |
| 11 |
>> branch, but putting it in writing would make things clearer for |
| 12 |
>> prospective repo maintainers. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> OK, then I think that it would be a good idea to have a gentoo-ci |
| 15 |
> branch, or similar, if the assumption is merely that this is where |
| 16 |
> Gentoo developers will look when evaluating your repository. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
Ok, if we go this route, here is a basic simple question. Why can't the |
| 19 |
"gentoo-ci" be a package, or group of packages that runs in a private |
| 20 |
persons own resources, regardless it is a single gentoo server or a |
| 21 |
small cluster (openstack)? That way, those gentoo-ciruns can be |
| 22 |
performed by the proxy or the author thus reducing the workload for QA |
| 23 |
or other devs. I guess what I'm really asking is/will the gentoo-ci be |
| 24 |
packaged up for the gentoo community to use, on a small set of packages? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Is that idea too difficult at this time? |
| 27 |
Is there even a glep, or standard or part of PMS that will allow the |
| 28 |
gentoo-ci solution to become a routine tool for all to use? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Alexander |
| 33 |
> bernalex@g.o |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
curiously, |
| 37 |
James |
Archives