Re: Support levels and RFR adjustments

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 22.1.2016 v 22:33 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> fedoraproject.org - Anything with this domain is something that has
> passed though our RFR process and we support fully. This means we
> update status, we alert on them anytime they have issues, we work on
> them anytime they are down, etc. 
> 
> fedorainfracloud.org - This comes with a lesser level of support,
> simply because our cloud doesn't have any kind of HA setup, so
> it will be down when doing maint or when there's problems. Services in
> this domain may be down when there is scheduled cloud maint. We
> monitor, but don't page off hours, we may work on issues only during
> business hours, etc. Services here may not have passed through our RFR
> process (perhaps we should have a parallel cloud process) 

I personally do not like fedorainfracloud.org. It is fine for hostnames of 
machines in cloud. I would rather see some
subdomain under fedoraproject.org - e.g. .devel.fedoraproject.org or 
.playground.fedoraproject.org or something similar.

I personally dislike the change of copr.fedoraproject.org to 
copr.fedorainfracloud.org. We have been usin this name for
past two years and it is referenced a lot (35k by Google):
  
https://www.google.com/search?lr==cs=%22copr.fedoraproject.org%22=copr.fedoraproject.org%22
This is not pure technical decision but marketing decision as well.
A lot of people are treating it as integral part of Fedora. So instead of 
changing hostname I would rather start RFR
process.

I think that some icon at the top or link at the bottom of page, which will 
clearly state the level of support will do
the same from technical POV, but will be better solution from marketing POV.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

SPF and email forwarding

[Miroslav Suchý]

Today I sent email to packager-spons...@fedoraproject.org and several email 
returned back due SPF protection.
Can someone either implement this:
  http://www.openspf.org/Best_Practices/Forwarding
or turn those email aliases to mailing list?

Mirek


 Přeposlaná zpráva 
Předmět: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Datum: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:18:13 + (UTC)
Od: Mail Delivery System 
Komu: msu...@redhat.com

This is the mail system at host bastion02.phx2.fedoraproject.org.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

   The mail system

 (expanded from ):
host mail.leemhuis.info[195.137.212.29] said: 550 5.7.1
: Recipient address rejected: Please see

http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=msuchy%40redhat.com;ip=209.132.181.3;r=basicbox7.server-home.net
(in reply to RCPT TO command)

 (expanded from ): host
kawka.in.waw.pl[178.62.225.244] said: 550-[SPF] 209.132.181.3 is not
allowed to send mail from redhat.com.  Please 550 see

http://www.openspf.org/Why?scope=mfrom;identity=msu...@redhat.com;ip=209.132.181.3
(in reply to RCPT TO command)

 (expanded from
): host mx.unil.ch[130.223.27.62]
said: 550 209.132.181.3 is not allowed to send mail from redhat.com (SPF
failure) (in reply to RCPT TO command)

 (expanded from
): host
smtpz4.laposte.net[194.117.213.1] said: 550 5.5.0 SPF: 209.132.181.3 is not
allowed to send mail. LPN007_401 (in reply to MAIL FROM command)



Reporting-MTA: dns; bastion02.phx2.fedoraproject.org
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 23600607EA45
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; msuchy@redhat.com
Arrival-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:16:53 + (UTC)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; fedora@leemhuis.info
Original-Recipient: rfc822;packager-sponsors@fedoraproject.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.leemhuis.info
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 : Recipient address
rejected: Please see
http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=msuchy%40redhat.com;ip=209.132.181.3;r=basicbox7.server-home.net

Final-Recipient: rfc822; zbyszek@in.waw.pl
Original-Recipient: rfc822;packager-sponsors@fedoraproject.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: dns; kawka.in.waw.pl
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550-[SPF] 209.132.181.3 is not allowed to send mail from
redhat.com.  Please 550 see
http://www.openspf.org/Why?scope=mfrom;identity=msuchy@redhat.com;ip=209.132.181.3

Final-Recipient: rfc822; Christian.Iseli@unil.ch
Original-Recipient: rfc822;packager-sponsors@fedoraproject.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: dns; mx.unil.ch
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 209.132.181.3 is not allowed to send mail from
redhat.com (SPF failure)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net
Original-Recipient: rfc822;packager-sponsors@fedoraproject.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.5.0
Remote-MTA: dns; smtpz4.laposte.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.5.0 SPF: 209.132.181.3 is not allowed to send
mail. LPN007_401

--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I prepared short survey for Fedora Sponsors:
  http://goo.gl/forms/2sdgGH5qYG
I will appreciate if you can file in your answers. The survey is anonymous.

I am sending another survey to new people who were recently sponsored. I plan 
to publish the results of both surveys at
Flock this summer and maybe we discover something what can be improved.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys

--- End Message ---
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Support levels and RFR adjustments

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:29:05 +0100
Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> I personally do not like fedorainfracloud.org. It is fine for
> hostnames of machines in cloud. I would rather see some subdomain
> under fedoraproject.org - e.g. .devel.fedoraproject.org
> or .playground.fedoraproject.org or something similar.

Well, it's in the cloud, so it's more descriptive, IMHO. 
And sorry for the quick change, we needed new ssl certs very soon, so
thought it would make sense to get them with these names. 
> 
> I personally dislike the change of copr.fedoraproject.org to
> copr.fedorainfracloud.org. We have been usin this name for past two
> years and it is referenced a lot (35k by Google):
> https://www.google.com/search?lr==cs=%22copr.fedoraproject.org%22=copr.fedoraproject.org%22
> This is not pure technical decision but marketing decision as well. A
> lot of people are treating it as integral part of Fedora. So instead
> of changing hostname I would rather start RFR process.

Well, for what? We have talked about moving the non builder parts of
copr into regular infrastructure in the past, but we didn't do it for
whatever reasons. Doing so would get us some advantages and some
problems: 

Advantages: could use the proxy system to cache things and also do HA
with multiple frontends or possibly even backends if we wanted. Could
mean frontend/backend/sign/git are more stable as they are not on the
cloud. 

Disadvantages: would need to figure out how to shuffle around storage,
as we have copr storage tied to the cloud right now. It would be some
work to move things around and get it all working right. 

> I think that some icon at the top or link at the bottom of page,
> which will clearly state the level of support will do the same from
> technical POV, but will be better solution from marketing POV.

The problem with that is when the thing is down, users have no way to
look at that. They just see it's down and have the expectation that
they already do in their minds. 

kevin


pgpXm1W9wOl04.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Support levels and RFR adjustments

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:45:08 -0700
Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:

...snip...

> 
> Usually when doing "support levels" there is the need to come up with
> response times. I don't know if we can really do that since we don't
> have business hours and such.

Well, we could try and do that, but It might be hard... we could do
some with a fair bit of wiggle room at first then adjust I suppose. 

> Things like copr go under fedorainfracloud.org correct?

That was the thought as currently setup. 

> Things we get pinged on at times which are Red Hat related but we
> don't control. I know we get occasional "gnome.org?" and
> "softwarecollections.org" and similar questions which we know who to
> contact but have nothing but that.

Yeah, but not sure what we can do about those aside from saying "Sorry,
we don't handle those, try contacting XYZ"

kevin


pgpr1CTJHxS9X.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: SPF and email forwarding

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:59:19 +0100
Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Today I sent email to packager-spons...@fedoraproject.org and several
> email returned back due SPF protection. Can someone either implement
> this: http://www.openspf.org/Best_Practices/Forwarding
> or turn those email aliases to mailing list?

I don't think there's anything we can do here. This is redhat.com's SPF
record saying fedoraproject.org isn't allowed to send as it (and I
doubt Red Hat would want to change that). 

You could instead send with your fedoraproject.org address and it
should bypass this? 

kevin
--
> 
> Mirek
> 
> 
>  Přeposlaná zpráva 
> Předmět: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
> Datum: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:18:13 + (UTC)
> Od: Mail Delivery System 
> Komu: msu...@redhat.com
> 
> This is the mail system at host bastion02.phx2.fedoraproject.org.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
> 
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
> 
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
> 
>The mail system
> 
>  (expanded from
> ): host
> mail.leemhuis.info[195.137.212.29] said: 550 5.7.1
> : Recipient address rejected: Please see
> http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=msuchy%40redhat.com;ip=209.132.181.3;r=basicbox7.server-home.net
> (in reply to RCPT TO command)
> 
>  (expanded from
> ): host
> kawka.in.waw.pl[178.62.225.244] said: 550-[SPF] 209.132.181.3 is not
> allowed to send mail from redhat.com.  Please 550 see
> http://www.openspf.org/Why?scope=mfrom;identity=msu...@redhat.com;ip=209.132.181.3
> (in reply to RCPT TO command)
> 
>  (expanded from
> ): host
> mx.unil.ch[130.223.27.62] said: 550 209.132.181.3 is not allowed to
> send mail from redhat.com (SPF failure) (in reply to RCPT TO command)
> 
>  (expanded from
> ): host
> smtpz4.laposte.net[194.117.213.1] said: 550 5.5.0 SPF:
> 209.132.181.3 is not allowed to send mail. LPN007_401 (in reply to
> MAIL FROM command)
> 
> 
> 



pgpfQ3j_fcYZB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

pagure tickets brainstorming

[Kevin Fenzi]

So, a number of our applications/projects have moved from github or
fedorahosted to pagure, which is coming along nicely. :) 

We do have a number of "projects" on fedorahosted that aren't really
software projects, but use fedorahosted almost completely for trac. 
trac is... not enjoyed by many, so it would be nice to look at what we
would need to add to pagure tickets handling in order to cover those
cases so we could look at moving some of these 'projects' over to
pagure. ;) 

So, first many projects use the trac "wiki" for a page with docs on how
to file tickets, etc. I think pagure docs already should handle this
case very nicely, although perhaps there should be an option to make
the 'docs' page the default for a project instead of 'overview' ?

Pagure also has blocking/deps and private tickets. 

Now, on to the things I think might be desired: 

* Custom ticket statuses (some projects use this to make statuses that
  are more descriptive for their project, like "upstream" or "accepted"
  or whatever. This might require splitting the status of tickets to
  open or closed 'status' and have a seperate 'resolution' or
  something. 

* Tagging of issues. Tons of projects use a 'meeting' keyword to mark
  tickets they want to discuss in meetings. A way to display only
  tagged tickets would be good and a bonus would be a irc friendly
  meeting output to copy and paste. I see a "Tags:" field, but not how
  to populate it. Is this in progress?

* A way to cc or bcc a group of people on all tickets in a project. Do
  we already have this?

* Milestones (but I am not sure how much these are used). Some projects
  have "Fedora 24 Alpha" "Fedora 24 Beta" type milestones for things to
  be finished before some event. Perhaps we just want to drop this idea
  in favor of some kind of deadline listing and emiting a message when
  the deadline is reached? "This ticket was supposed to be done by now!"

* Templates. We use these a lot in infrastructure. Basically when
  filing a new issue there's a list of templates and when someone
  selects one it sets the initial contents and assigned and such. These
  are handy for making sure users give the needed info for a type of
  request. 

* Theres a batch modify plugin that lets you modify a bunch of tickets
  at once. I don't think this is critical, but might be nice to have. 

* Is there a way to completely delete a ticket? Sometimes we have done
  that on trac for spam tickets. 

Thats all I can think of off hand... can other folks think of things we
use trac tickets for in the projects that are primarily using trac only?

kevin


pgpe4LHbxhkYC.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: pagure tickets brainstorming

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 25 January 2016 at 14:27, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
> So, a number of our applications/projects have moved from github or
> fedorahosted to pagure, which is coming along nicely. :)
>

 lots of good things deleted.

> * Is there a way to completely delete a ticket? Sometimes we have done
>   that on trac for spam tickets.
>

That one is going to be important for spam and other reasons "Oh I
pasted my password in the form"

> Thats all I can think of off hand... can other folks think of things we
> use trac tickets for in the projects that are primarily using trac only?
>

That was all I could think of myself.
> kevin
>
> ___
> infrastructure mailing list
> infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org