Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update scmsync documentation #332

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Mar 14, 2024
Merged

Conversation

adrianschroeter
Copy link
Member

changed defaults and changed recommendations

xml/obs_scm_bridge.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
xml/obs_scm_bridge.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
have to happen inside of the SCM provider instance. OBS will just verify the authenticity of that resource in
future.</para>
<para>This allows to run the entire packaging source update in an external SCM repository using the
native tooling. It is recommended to have this SCM server on the same trust level as the OBS
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The first sentence of this paragraph is potentially unclear in two ways.

First, it refers to "the entire packaging source update" - the definite article ("the") indicates that there is some definite (specific) packaging source update that is being referred to, but I'm not sure this is the case? What do you mean by "the entire packaging source update", here, exactly?

Second, it says "using the native tooling". Again, the definite article is used, but I'm not sure the reader knows which "native tooling" you mean here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tried to be more clear now.

xml/obs_scm_bridge.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
different or not all. For example you can not use automatic package source merging via _link files anymore.
This means also that workflows inside of OBS are not working anymore or are limited. A submit or release
request would still work with a scmsync source, but the user would manually need to specify the target always.
Functionality for project managed resources is even more limited.</para>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you give an example or two of these "project managed resources" for readers who aren't familiar with this term?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have reworeded this now.

@@ -127,7 +147,7 @@
by referencing it via the scmsync meta tag.
</para>
<para>
This has been only implemented for gitea atm, you can find details in the <link xlink:href="https://github.com/adrianschroeter/obs-gitea-bridge">obs-gitea-bridge</link> documentation.
This has been only implemented for gitea atm, you can find details in the <link xlink:href="https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-gitea-bridge">obs-gitea-bridge</link> documentation.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The SCM bridge has so far only been implemented for gitea. You can find details in . . .

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not the scmsync, but the update notification. changed that now.

changed defaults and changed recommendations
xml/obs_scm_bridge.xml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@smithfarm smithfarm self-requested a review March 14, 2024 12:36
Signed-off-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>
@smithfarm smithfarm merged commit dd31a31 into openSUSE:master Mar 14, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants