|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
till commented 6 years ago | ||
mprahl commented 6 years ago That is a good point but as I understand it, Pagure over dist-git has no concept of a specific branch being orphaned. It's basically all or nothing, since a project is marked as orphaned only when the "main admin" on the project is the "orphan" user. Specific branches can be retired, and those are marked in PDC. | ||
mohanboddu commented 6 years ago This is bad, what if something is changed in newer branches and the maintainer doesn't want to maintain a package anymore in newer branches or vice versa. How can we handle these kind of situations? | ||
mprahl commented 6 years ago Any branches that aren't maintained would be marked as inactive in PDC by having their SLs EOL to the day those branches are orphaned or retired. Also, those branches would have dead.package files in them. | ||
till commented 6 years ago The worklflow used to be that maintainers can decide to orphan or retire packages. If the package is ok in general but the maintainer does not want to maintain a package anymore or if the maintainer is nonresponsive, the package is orphaned. This only marks the packages as being in search of a new maintainer. If the package is not useful anymore, the maintainer should retire it (only possible in EPEL, Rawhide and Branched (before the final freeze)). Alternatively releng (usually me) retires packages that are orphaned for more than 6 weeks. | ||
mprahl commented 6 years ago @till, thank you for bringing that up. I forgot about the orphan period in my last comment. @ralph may have a better idea, but here's my suggestion. In the event that a package is orphaned, perhaps we change the "main admin" to orphan in Pagure, and keep the SLs on the current Fedora release branches (e.g. f26) the same. All other branches could be set to EOL in 6 weeks if no one picks it up. That is more or less the same workflow but with the different tools. Thoughts? | ||
till commented 6 years ago @mprahl, the thing is, that it seems to me that if the EPEL branches and the Fedora branches are maintained by different people, i.e.there is a bugzilla override for EPEL in https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/tree/master, the EPEL branches should not be considered orphaned when the Fedora maintainer orphans the package. Therefore checking only the main admin would not be enough. Btw. I guess also something needs to remove bugzilla overrides from the fedora-scm-requests repo when a package is retired to make sure the information is consistent. Not sure where this would belong to. | ||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This repoints fedretire to query PDC and pagure for the retired/orphaned
status of packages.
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ArbitraryBranching
Signed-off-by: Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com
The branch is not considered to check if a package is orphaned.