Re: moving bugzilla overrides to dist-git

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:18:32PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > It would be nice if we would implement "approval" system while doing > this. Like if you set somebody as override, that person must click > "accept". Same way to change it, the old person must click "accept". I'm trying to think how

Re: moving bugzilla overrides to dist-git

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 05:18:32PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > It would be nice if we would implement "approval" system while doing > this. Like if you set somebody as override, that person must click > "accept". Same way to change it, the old person must click "accept". I'm trying to think how

Re: moving bugzilla overrides to dist-git

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 08:46:28AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 8:39 AM Karsten Hopp wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We are currently working on getting rid of the git repo at > > fedora-scm-requests [1] which is nowadays only used to store the overrides > > of the default

Re: moving bugzilla overrides to dist-git

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 08:46:28AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 8:39 AM Karsten Hopp wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We are currently working on getting rid of the git repo at > > fedora-scm-requests [1] which is nowadays only used to store the overrides > > of the default

Re: Working fedora-active-user script?

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 01:52:52PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: >First, done anyone have a working version of the script? Google returns >the github page which hasn't been updated in 3 years and currently fails >trying to import the 'fedora_cert' module. There is a PR submitted that

Re: Allow comments and discussion even though an update was pushed to stable

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:51:40AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Fri, Dec 6, 2019, 07:35 Johannes Lips <[1]johannes.l...@gmail.com> >wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was recently bit by a bug, which was caused by a mismatch between > texlive-biblatex and biber. The technical

Re: Bohdi / Create New Update - I miss the field Builds

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 04:44:34PM -, Martin Gansser wrote: > I mean this field [1] > > [1] https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/ErrorReports/bohdi/bohdi.png https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new It is now at the very top of the page addressing some of the feedback the previous version of

Re: Bohdi / Create New Update - I miss the field Builds

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:12:50PM -, Martin Gansser wrote: > Hi, > > i want to create a new update on bohdi for the package > vdr-epg2vdr-1.1.103-2.fc31, but i miss the field Builds on create new update. > What is going wrong ? First field at the top? Or maybe you could share a screenshot

Re: Unorphan instructions

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:11:51PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 04. 12. 19 11:28, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Doesn't the new "Take" button at > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/eclipse-avr work, so we don't have > > to bother releng anymore? > > It's at the bottom of the left navigation

Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:27:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 10:42 Pierre-Yves Chibon <[1]pin...@pingoured.fr> >wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:25:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >    On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:44 Ke

Re: dist-git bugzilla sync script being fixed

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 06:26:32PM -0500, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: > On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 08:22, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > Good Morning Everyone™, > > > > we have recently spent some time refactoring, improving and fixing the > > script > >

Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:25:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 22:44 Kevin Kofler <[1]kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Should any other packager (not that maintainer) be able to request > > new branches on that repo? > >

Re: dist-git bugzilla sync script being fixed

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 01:26:00PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone™, > > > > we have recently spent some time refactoring, improving and fixing the > > script

Re: dist-git bugzilla sync script being fixed

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 02:31:39PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 11. 19 18:17, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone™, > > Morning o/ > > > we have recently spent some time refactoring, improving and fixing the > > script > > that syncs t

dist-git bugzilla sync script being fixed

Good Morning Everyone™, we have recently spent some time refactoring, improving and fixing the script that syncs the default assignee and CC list from dist-git to Bugzilla. Since the script was broken for some time, we felt that it needs some validation before we run it live (which will still

dist-git bugzilla sync script being fixed

Good Morning Everyone™, we have recently spent some time refactoring, improving and fixing the script that syncs the default assignee and CC list from dist-git to Bugzilla. Since the script was broken for some time, we felt that it needs some validation before we run it live (which will still

Re: Bodhi not working

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:12:31AM +0100, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: >Hi, >just tried to issue a new release for one of the packages I maintain and >Bodhi is failing to get the list of the candidate builds. >browser console shows (sorry, it's in italian): >Errore mapping di

Re: PSA: please stop manually titling Bodhi updates

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 09:53 Joe Orton <[1]jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:33:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! > > > > Since the new Bodhi UI rolled out recently I've

Announcing new anitya integration and de-orphaning process

Good Morning Everyone, Tomorrow we are planning on deploying a new version of pagure and pagure-dist-git on production. These changes come with two changes to the packager workflow: * Anitya integration in dist-git Something we lost when loosing pkgdb was the easy integration to anitya

Announcing new anitya integration and de-orphaning process

Good Morning Everyone, Tomorrow we are planning on deploying a new version of pagure and pagure-dist-git on production. These changes come with two changes to the packager workflow: * Anitya integration in dist-git Something we lost when loosing pkgdb was the easy integration to anitya

Re: OpenShift-apps playbooks in the master.yml playbook

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:59:44PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: >Hey all, >I have just disabled the openshift-apps playbooks from running in the >master playbook run (see > >

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:15:57PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are > > > inline. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > On

Re: Jenkins upgrade to change from fedmsg to fedora-messaging

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 05:34:40PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: >BTW , Jenkins was retired from rawhide [1]. >I tried built Jenkins on rawhide but build failed with a lot of missing >packages that are BuildRequires. > >

Re: F29 and older instances

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:32:37PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings everyone. > > On 2019-11-26 fedora 29 will go end of life and no longer supported. > > We still have a number of things that are f29 (or older for various > reasons). I'd like everyone to look this over and see if you

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:21:49PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: >On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Miro Hrončok <[1]mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 12. 11. 19 10:45, Clement Verna wrote: > > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in > with few UI >

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:46:03AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:27 AM Jerry James wrote: > > 2. It is not possible to create a newpackage update with the GUI. > > I've got a brand new package, gap-pkg-fining, with a brand new build > > for F31. I type "gap-pkg-fining"

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:06:33AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Symbiotic is, I think, the best way to describe the Red Hat/Fedora > > relationship. > > Well, a symbiosis has to go both ways. In this case, I unfortunately get the > f

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:32:03AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/5/19 9:41 PM, Alex Scheel wrote: > > > IMO, without a resolution in Fedora we'll never get one in RHEL. > > And? Why should Fedora care about RHEL? Because Fedora and Red Hat symbiotic. I think this has been said at a few

Call for testers: testing multi-builds gating for rawhide packages in staging

Good Morning Everyone, It has now been a few months since we launched the possibility to gate single-builds in bodhi for rawhide updates, since then we have been working on the step two to allow gating multi-builds updates in bodhi. We are reaching completion on this work but before we push it to

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Annobin Used By Bodhi

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:19:42PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:01:55PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > Note - I do not know *how* to add a run of the annocheck program to > > the Bodhi process. This change request is about asking that such a > > thing be

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:06:00AM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 08:09 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > There's a very large difference between feedback like "I think the > > user experience is suboptimal here, for this reason" and "I don't > > like the entire design, you

Re: FBR: Update koji-sidetag-plugin on Koji hub

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 03:30:50PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > In order to fix issue 8322 [1] python2-koji-sidetag-plugin-hub needs > to be updated. This would be done with the following commands: > > $ koji move epel7-infra-stg epel7-infra koji-sidetag-plugin-0.1-2.el7.infra > >

Re: EPEL-8 branches requests being rejected

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:45:36AM +0200, Michal Ruprich wrote: >Hi, > >I am trying to request epel-8 branch for rsh package but the request is >always closed as invalid with this explanation: "The branch in PDC already >exists". I have no idea what that means. I simply cannot

Re: FBR: Update pungi on compose-x8-01.phx2.fp.o

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:09:07PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote: > Hi, > > The current RC compose is failing due to a bug in pungi which got > fixed recently. I would like to update pungi on > compose-x86-01-.phx2.fp.o to fix this issue. > > Issue: https://pagure.io/releng/failed-composes/issue/328

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: On-demand Side Tagsn

On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 05:42:02PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 05:49:18PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:09:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > >

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:38:39AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > So, literally every word of this is wrong. The negative feedback is > > not "overwhelming". It is approximately four noisy individuals, all of > > whom have expressed zero interest in understanding the actual > > situation that they

Re: Big Freeze Break Request: replicate db-koji01

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:35:24PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings folks. > > As you may know, currently database backups on db-koji01 are causing > very heavy load, disrupting our users builds ( > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8292 ) > so, they are currently disabled. >

Re: [Post Fact FBR] update repoSpanner's SSL cert for pagure01

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:41:03AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:47:00AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > This morning I found out that https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure was > > not > > avail

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:03:02PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:56 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > remove it" or something like that. It should never be used in the > > > general case. Not

[Post Fact FBR] update repoSpanner's SSL cert for pagure01

Good Morning Everyone, This morning I found out that https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure was not available, it was throwing a 500 error on every page/call. I checked the logs and found: GitError: Error performing curl request: (60): Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with given CA

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > You seem to totally miss the point - there is no one even trying to ship > > Maven as a traditional package so what should we do give up on having > > anything built with Maven in the distro? > > If

Re: FBR : update robosignatory

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:47:00PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:41 PM Aurelien Bompard > wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > Last Monday, before the freeze, we updated Robosignatory in prod with a few > > new features, some of which could not be tested in staging as

Re: Emergency FBR: Lower concurrency on postgres to help load

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:52:20AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Currently the load on db-koji is 140+ and it is slow and > non-responsive to users. I believe it is the below change which has > affected this. I would like to lower down io to 32 to see if that > affects things and tune

Re: FBR : update robosignatory

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:41:28PM +0200, Aurelien Bompard wrote: >Hey folks, >Last Monday, before the freeze, we updated Robosignatory in prod with a >few new features, some of which could not be tested in staging as >thoroughly as we wanted to. As a result, the version currently

Re: koji web interface is very slow

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 08:42:57PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to fix? > Thanks! You'll have to be more specific than this, there has been some work put recently on its database which led to some improvements so if you still

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:46:00AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot > > > > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular > > and non-modular RPMs. > > > > ==

Re: FBR: subscribe fedora-messaging consumers to zmq.topic

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:03:48PM +0200, Aurelien Bompard wrote: > Do you have a ansible patch here? > >Yes, sorry, this is it. > diff --git a/roles/rabbit/queue/tasks/main.yml > b/roles/rabbit/queue/tasks/main.yml > index 7259984f6..68ced3015 100644 > ---

Re: [PATCH] bodhi / backend: No longer sync or make aarch64 for epel7.

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:37:54PM +, ke...@scrye.com wrote: > From: Kevin Fenzi > > Since rhel dropped alt arch aarch64 with 7.7, we have to drop it in epel too. > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Fenzi > --- > roles/bodhi2/backend/files/new-updates-sync| 4 ++-- >

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:54:56PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 07. 10. 19 v 12:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:57:55PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Dne 04. 10. 19 v 18:10 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:57:55PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 04. 10. 19 v 18:10 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:54 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon > > wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:17:37PM +0200, Ben Rosser wrote: > >> >

Re: This update's test gating status has been changed to, 'greenwave_failed'.

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 03:11:28PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Sun, Oct 6, 2019, 15:07 Miro Hrončok <[1]mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Couple of my updates have e-mailed me $subj. Is it something to worry > about? > >I got this too for a lot of my updates, just a few

Re: Nuancier, Python Fedora

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 05:33:48PM +0300, Benson Muite wrote: > > On 10/5/19 11:09 AM, Benson Muite wrote: > > Thanks. Am updating deployment Ansible: > > > > https://github.com/bkmgit/nuancier/blob/master/Vagrantfile.example > > > >

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 08:07:33AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Yep. Not every package is the same. For stuff like simple > python/nodejs/rust/ruby/perl/… packages, I know that the only thing > I do is mechanically bump the version and rebuild. I don't take a careful > look at the

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:17:37PM +0200, Ben Rosser wrote: Thanks for your words, I appreciate the support on the idea. > 1. Creating new packages has become (more of) a pain since the > retirement of pkgdb2. I know I keep complaining about needing to > manually fetch Pagure API keys, but it is

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 03:17:33PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote: > With about six more emails about it, sure. And another piece of > infrastructure that has to be up and bug-free. > > Even the gating and bodhi emails today are rather a lot: I don't want to > be notified if everything worked

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 03:29:23AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:30:28AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > > > > > Pierre-Yves Chibon writes: > > > > > > > Here

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:33:11PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:24:29PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon w

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:23:21AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 9/26/19 10:28 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Would this change if the PR was automatically tested for you without you > > having > > to do anything? > > I always run local mock bui

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:24:28AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:07 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > What is so different in Fedora that we cannot move to this model? > > Is it a tooling issue? > > Is it something else? > > As others have a

Re: Meeting Agenda Item: Introduction Stephen Coady

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:20:08PM +0100, Stephen Coady wrote: >Hi everyone. >My name is Stephen Coady and I have just joined the community platform >engineering team.  >I have been using Fedora for about 2 years now on and off. I am looking >forward to contributing to the

Re: Finding out ownership of packages & branches

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:27:29PM +0200, Tim Jackson wrote: > On 30/09/2019 21:02, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Tim Jackson wrote: > > > > Where is the canonical source these days for establishing package > > > (co-)ownership, in particular in relation to

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:30:28AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > > > Pierre-Yves Chibon writes: > > > > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would like to discuss: > > > > > &

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:46:32PM +0200, Ben Rosser wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:29 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > > There is a clear initial rejection of a PR-only contribution model. I hear > > that > > and that may mean that we never go this way. I'm honestly

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > At Flock, a few of us met to discuss a future vision of the packager > > workflow. > &

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:47:24AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 9/26/19 8:42 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Again, I'd like to reinforce that the idea is not to enforce any part of > > this > > workflow tomorrow, it'll be a smooth, slow and long tr

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 06:38:45AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:11 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:01:25PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > > > Le 26/09/2019 à 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit : > > &g

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:40:49PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 26. 09. 19 v 15:10 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:01:25PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > > > Le 26/09/2019 à 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit : > > > > Here is what the

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:14:38AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 09:02, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > Le 26/09/2019 à 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit : > > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would like to discuss: > > >

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:15:03PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:01:25PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > > Le 26/09/2019 à 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit : > > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would like to discuss: &g

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:01:25PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 26/09/2019 à 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit : > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would like to discuss: > > > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests > > IMHO Ha

Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

Good Morning Everyone, At Flock, a few of us met to discuss a future vision of the packager workflow. This discussion was triggered by the realization that a number of initiatives are happening around packaging in Fedora but there is no real shared vision on what we want the packager UX/workflow

Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

Good Morning Everyone, At Flock, a few of us met to discuss a future vision of the packager workflow. This discussion was triggered by the realization that a number of initiatives are happening around packaging in Fedora but there is no real shared vision on what we want the packager UX/workflow

Re: Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 06:39:08PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:21:31AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > On 9/13/19 12:32 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > ## Anitya integration > > > > > > Currently

Re: Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:21:31AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: > > > On 9/13/19 12:32 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > ## Anitya integration > > > > Currently if you want to tweak the setting for the anitya integration, you > > need > > to open a pull-req

Re: Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 03:30:30PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 13/09/19 12:32, Pierre-Yves Chibon ha scritto: > > ## Orphan packages > > > > Currently if a package is orphaned there is no way to adopt it easily on > > dist-git (https://src.fedorapro

Re: Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:51:20PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 12:32:34PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > The Fedora Infrastructure team has been working on making changes to the way > >

Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

Good Morning Everyone, The Fedora Infrastructure team has been working on making changes to the way orphaned packages are being adopted as well as the way to set the monitoring status for the integration with anitya (ie: https://release-monitoring.org). ## Orphan packages Currently if a

Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

Good Morning Everyone, The Fedora Infrastructure team has been working on making changes to the way orphaned packages are being adopted as well as the way to set the monitoring status for the integration with anitya (ie: https://release-monitoring.org). ## Orphan packages Currently if a

Re: State/future of the packages app

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:14:04PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 14:56, Neal Gompa <[1]ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Is it OK for us to link to the packages application in > documentation, or > >> >> should we just link to src.fp.o already (in the

Re: FBR: MBS Upgrade

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:23:31PM -, Matt Prahl wrote: > Thank you Kevin! > > Yes, you are correct. This is just running an Ansible playbook which updates > the RPMs on the two frontend servers and the one backend server. +1 for me as well. Pierre

Re: is this update stuck? Ceph-14.2.3-1.fc32

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 09:56:05AM +0300, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >[1]https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6f5be50fd9 >Two other ceph updatest submitted around the same time moved to testing >okay. >If it is stuck, can someone with appropriate privs please kick it. It

Re: [PATCH] bodhi-backend / pungi: drop i386 trees for f31+

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 12:04:24PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 9/9/19 11:31 AM, Randy Barlow wrote: > > +1 > > Oops. I forgot a part of this fix: > > > diff --git a/roles/bodhi2/backend/files/new-updates-sync > b/roles/bodhi2/backend/files/new-updates-sync > index 975d462..fde72e3 100755 >

Re: FBR: Allow sysadmin-osbs to SSH into bastion and batcave

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:15:25PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > Resolves https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8182 > --- > inventory/group_vars/bastion | 2 +- > inventory/group_vars/batcave | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git

FBR: upgrading pagure

Good Morning, I've just cut a new pagure bugfix release: 5.7.9 the changelog can be found at: https://docs.pagure.org/pagure/changelog.html#id1 It's basically four small bug fixes one of which we have already hotfixed, so this release drops the hotfix but not the fix :) In addition, I'd like to

Re: [PATCH] ipsilon: add aws-copr group to ipsilon for aws access.

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 11:59:21PM +, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Signed-off-by: Kevin Fenzi > --- > roles/ipsilon/files/infofas.py | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/roles/ipsilon/files/infofas.py b/roles/ipsilon/files/infofas.py > index 2b59000..5454edf 100644 > ---

Re: Freeze Break Request: newer rabbitmq for loopabull

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:34:54PM +, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > The current version of pika in epel needs a newer version of rabbitmq-server > if it's running against one of those. RHOSP13 has a newer rabbitmq, and is > in fact the one we install on the rabbitmq/fedora messaging cluster. > >

Re: [PATCH] robosignatory: add f31/f32 infra tags and f31-gnome side tag to be signed.

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 05:30:03PM +, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Signed-off-by: Kevin Fenzi > --- > roles/robosignatory/files/robosignatory.production.py | 18 ++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/roles/robosignatory/files/robosignatory.production.py >

Re: FBR: Update smtpd gateway cert

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 12:54:45PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > [smooge@batcave01 ansible (master)]$ git diff > diff --git a/roles/base/tasks/postfix.yml b/roles/base/tasks/postfix.yml > index e6c93a9..ca08132 100644 > --- a/roles/base/tasks/postfix.yml > +++ b/roles/base/tasks/postfix.yml

Re: [FBR] upgrade the koji fedora-messaging plugin in prod

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:33:14AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 11:08, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 17:06, Pierre-Yves Chibon > > wrote: > >> > >> Good Morning, > >> > &

[FBR] Upgrade pagure in production

Good Morning, A bit before freeze started, we upgrade pagure to 5.7.4 on src.fp.o but forgot to do pagure.io Since then there has been 4 small bug fixes releases (most of which are related to src.fp.o), changelog is at: https://docs.pagure.org/pagure/changelog.html I'd like to upgrade src.fp.o

[FBR] upgrade the koji fedora-messaging plugin in prod

Good Morning, I would like to propose to upgrade the koji plugin for fedora-messaging so it integrates these changes: https://pagure.io/koji-fedmsg-plugin/pull-request/5 which hopefully will fix https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8158 Worst case they don't and we can revert and we're

Re: Rawhide gating: What shell be done with failed updates?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:11:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 28. 08. 19 15:05, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > In this case I'd encourage to unpush update A since you know beforehand > > > > and are > > > > not interested in ever seeing this update

Re: Rawhide gating: What shell be done with failed updates?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:47:32PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 28. 08. 19 14:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:42:34PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 28. 08. 19 13:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:16:

Re: Freeze Break Request: Content security policy on src.fp.o

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:24:42PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 13:15, Julen Landa Alustiza ><[1]jla...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Good morning all! > > Due to pagure's new default content security policy src.fp.o users are > getting a csp-error

Re: Rawhide gating: What shell be done with failed updates?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:42:34PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 28. 08. 19 13:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 28. 08. 19 9:32, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > > > > > > &g

Re: Rawhide gating: What shell be done with failed updates?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 28. 08. 19 9:32, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 15:35 Miro Hrončok > > wrote: > > > > If updates in rawhide gating fail the tests, what is the procedure? > > Should

Re: Freeze Break Request: Content security policy on src.fp.o

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:08:01PM +0200, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > Good morning all! > > Due to pagure's new default content security policy src.fp.o users are > getting a csp-error since the ui is trying to fetch a js file from > apps.fp.o and the policy denies it. > > We need a

Re: Fedora 31 Beta freeze now in effect

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:50:57PM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 8/27/19 2:21 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > we are now in the infrastructure freeze leading up to the Fedora 31 > > Beta release. This is a pre release freeze. > > > > We do this to ensure that our

Re: Fedora 31: Noninstallable Python 2 packages to be retired just before the beta freeze

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:25 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > In line with the approved Fedora 31 change, packages that fail to install > > due to > > missing Python 2 dependencies are to be removed. I plan to retire the > >

Re: No longer supporting mailing lists:

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:50:29AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Anyway, I thought this is about switching to external hosting of mailing > lists for those who need them, not banning them altogether. That is correct, while discussing investing in mailing lists the CPE team was really clear that

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >