Can't release applications

[Ben Cooksley]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Aleix Pol <aleixpol at kde.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ben Cooksley <bcooksley at kde.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Aleix Pol <aleixpol at kde.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Boudhayan Gupta <bgupta at kde.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 27 July 2016 at 16:00, Harald Sitter <sitter at kde.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Luigi Toscano
>>>>> <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 12:22:45 CEST Aleix Pol wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> There's a major blocker when trying to release applications nowadays.
>>>>>>> To update the stable branch one needs to commit to the
>>>>>>> kde:sysadmin/repo-metadata.git repository, which can't be accessed by
>>>>>>> KDE Project maintainers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can we solve this?
>>>>
>>>> Note that we can give individual people RWC access to the repo. Just
>>>> file a ticket with the identity usernames of people who want that
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> But why? Why not make it a normal KDE repository? I know I can request
>>> it, but the next one will come with the same problem.
>>> In fact, I still have no idea what this has to do with sysadmin.
>>
>> The repository lives in the sysadmin/ namespace because it is not a
>> product developed by KDE - it is a Infrastructural Management
>> repository only (and yes, setting the l10n branches is a
>> infrastructural matter, because the translators don't [directly at
>> least] care what the branches are - it is scripty that cares and sets
>> everything up for them).
>>
>> This is much like the repository sysadmin/irc-notifications and
>> sysadmin/dns repositories.
>> repo-management is a relic of an era before the sysadmin/ namespace existed.
>>
>> I'm not sure at this point if the repository should be open push or
>> not - due to the potential to break updates to kde_projects.xml (which
>> has all sorts of impacts) as well as our current repository creation
>> workflow.
>
> So I guess we should have maintainers request write access?

For now at least yes - depending on the number of requestees we can
evaluate other options.

>
> Aleix

Cheers,
Ben