Re: The future of pkgdb

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 01:54 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi  writes:
>>
>> [Using foo-owner@fp.o as the default owner for bugs]
>> KF> But also disadvantages of people liking to see a name they can point
>> KF> to about the package or know who is cc'ed on the bug.
>>
>> For years I've wondered why we don't do that, honestly.  But I think it
>> might be weird that bugzilla separates the owner of a package from the
>> owner of a bug, and some of the interactions might be non-obvious.
>
> Yeah.
>
>> When I take a bug, will the other maintainers still be notified?  Will
>> bugzilla send mail to foo-owner as well as CC'ing the maintainers, so
>> that everyone gets each message twice?
>
> Yeah, if we made the default foo-owner and cc foo-owner, then when you
> took a bug, everyone would get a email because foo-owner is on there as
> cc, but you might get two (one for you and one via foo owner)
>
>> What happens to bugs marked as private?  If they're private to foo-owner
>> then how will the actual maintainers see them?
>
> Package maintainers would still need to be added to the right groups so
> they could see private bugs. (fedora_contrib_private I think it is).
>
IIRC, pkgdb CC'ing all listed people onto the bugs was to allow other
package owners to see the private bugs but it's been quite a while and
I don't know what has changed in bugzilla since then.

One way to address both the "what happens if I take ownership of a
bug, which removes the packagename-owner@fp.o alias?" and the "I don't
want to get bugzilla email to both the packagename-owner@fp.o and CC
list email" concerns would be to use a /dev/null'd address for the
initial owner field.  ie: bug report is initially assigned to
packagename-null@fp.o and all the maintainers are placed into the CC
list.

-Toshio "Popping back into obscurity now" Kuratomi
___
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The future of pkgdb

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 28.4.2017 v 12:27 Ryan Lerch napsal(a):
>
> On Fri., 28 Apr. 2017 at 6:05 pm, Vít Ondruch  > wrote:
>
>
>
> Dne 28.4.2017 v 07:34 Chenxiong Qi napsal(a):
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:29:28AM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 04/25/2017 10:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>  (adding the releng list on CC, please keep the reply on the
> infra list)
> 
> 
>  Hi Everyone,
> 
>  Following up on the thread about pagure on the top of
> dist-git started a
>  few days ago Ralph Bean, Matthew Prahl and I had a quick
> meeting just a few
>  minutes ago about the future of pkgdb.
> 
> >>> Will pkgdb go away? It looks Pagure would be a data store
> combining package
> >>> repositories and pkgdb data together. From my point of view,
> pkgdb could
> >>> still sit between packagers and Pagure rather than exposing
> lower level data
> >>> directly as an interface of package data (whatever it comes
> from Pagure or
> >>> PDC) to packagers and existing tools like pkgdb-cli. If
> anything of my
> >>> understand about current pkgdb is not accurate, just scratch
> my thought :)
> >> The idea is indeed to retire pkgdb. However, I'm not sure I
> follow why you would
> >> prefer to keep it and what you don't like about dropping it.
> Could you expand
> >> your thoughts a little more?
> > I thought "pkgdb" would become a main interface for anyone who wants
> > to lookup package information without need to interact with
> Pagure or
> > PDC directly, meanwhile we can keep using current terms about
> packages
> > e.g. main contacts, that would be easier for anyone to get involved
> > and start to contribute.
>
> I support this. For me is the pkgdb entry point. If I want to know
> something about package, I'm going to take a look into pkgdb. I'll be
> missing its simple UI.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
> There is also the packages app that provides information on packages
>
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/kernel

I know ... but honestly, this one is unusable ... starting by the ton of
slow javascript which often fails, ending with wrong information such as
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/rubygems/


Vít

>
> --ryanlerch
>
>
>
> >
> > Will current pkgdb API[1] be still available, or need to query from
> > Pagure or PDC individually?
> >
> > Actually, I don't insist on not drop pkgdb. Whatever it'll be
> dropped
> > or not and whatever the form it will be, as long as it could make
> > things easier for packagers and potential contributors. :)
> >
> > [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pierre
> >>
> >> ___
> >> infrastructure mailing list --
> infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> infrastructure mailing list --
> infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The future of pkgdb

[Ryan Lerch]

On Fri., 28 Apr. 2017 at 6:05 pm, Vít Ondruch  wrote:

>
>
> Dne 28.4.2017 v 07:34 Chenxiong Qi napsal(a):
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon 
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:29:28AM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 04/25/2017 10:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>  (adding the releng list on CC, please keep the reply on the infra
> list)
> 
> 
>  Hi Everyone,
> 
>  Following up on the thread about pagure on the top of dist-git
> started a
>  few days ago Ralph Bean, Matthew Prahl and I had a quick meeting just
> a few
>  minutes ago about the future of pkgdb.
> 
> >>> Will pkgdb go away? It looks Pagure would be a data store combining
> package
> >>> repositories and pkgdb data together. From my point of view, pkgdb
> could
> >>> still sit between packagers and Pagure rather than exposing lower
> level data
> >>> directly as an interface of package data (whatever it comes from
> Pagure or
> >>> PDC) to packagers and existing tools like pkgdb-cli. If anything of my
> >>> understand about current pkgdb is not accurate, just scratch my
> thought :)
> >> The idea is indeed to retire pkgdb. However, I'm not sure I follow why
> you would
> >> prefer to keep it and what you don't like about dropping it. Could you
> expand
> >> your thoughts a little more?
> > I thought "pkgdb" would become a main interface for anyone who wants
> > to lookup package information without need to interact with Pagure or
> > PDC directly, meanwhile we can keep using current terms about packages
> > e.g. main contacts, that would be easier for anyone to get involved
> > and start to contribute.
>
> I support this. For me is the pkgdb entry point. If I want to know
> something about package, I'm going to take a look into pkgdb. I'll be
> missing its simple UI.
>
>
> Vít


There is also the packages app that provides information on packages

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/kernel

--ryanlerch


>
> >
> > Will current pkgdb API[1] be still available, or need to query from
> > Pagure or PDC individually?
> >
> > Actually, I don't insist on not drop pkgdb. Whatever it'll be dropped
> > or not and whatever the form it will be, as long as it could make
> > things easier for packagers and potential contributors. :)
> >
> > [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pierre
> >>
> >> ___
> >> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The future of pkgdb

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 28.4.2017 v 07:34 Chenxiong Qi napsal(a):
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:29:28AM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/25/2017 10:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
 (adding the releng list on CC, please keep the reply on the infra list)


 Hi Everyone,

 Following up on the thread about pagure on the top of dist-git started a
 few days ago Ralph Bean, Matthew Prahl and I had a quick meeting just a few
 minutes ago about the future of pkgdb.

>>> Will pkgdb go away? It looks Pagure would be a data store combining package
>>> repositories and pkgdb data together. From my point of view, pkgdb could
>>> still sit between packagers and Pagure rather than exposing lower level data
>>> directly as an interface of package data (whatever it comes from Pagure or
>>> PDC) to packagers and existing tools like pkgdb-cli. If anything of my
>>> understand about current pkgdb is not accurate, just scratch my thought :)
>> The idea is indeed to retire pkgdb. However, I'm not sure I follow why you 
>> would
>> prefer to keep it and what you don't like about dropping it. Could you expand
>> your thoughts a little more?
> I thought "pkgdb" would become a main interface for anyone who wants
> to lookup package information without need to interact with Pagure or
> PDC directly, meanwhile we can keep using current terms about packages
> e.g. main contacts, that would be easier for anyone to get involved
> and start to contribute.

I support this. For me is the pkgdb entry point. If I want to know
something about package, I'm going to take a look into pkgdb. I'll be
missing its simple UI.


Vít

>
> Will current pkgdb API[1] be still available, or need to query from
> Pagure or PDC individually?
>
> Actually, I don't insist on not drop pkgdb. Whatever it'll be dropped
> or not and whatever the form it will be, as long as it could make
> things easier for packagers and potential contributors. :)
>
> [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/
>
>> Thanks,
>> Pierre
>>
>> ___
>> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
>
>
___
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The future of pkgdb

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 25.4.2017 v 21:54 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi  writes:
> [Using foo-owner@fp.o as the default owner for bugs]
> KF> But also disadvantages of people liking to see a name they can point
> KF> to about the package or know who is cc'ed on the bug.
>
> For years I've wondered why we don't do that, honestly.  But I think it
> might be weird that bugzilla separates the owner of a package from the
> owner of a bug, and some of the interactions might be non-obvious.
>
> When I take a bug, will the other maintainers still be notified?  Will
> bugzilla send mail to foo-owner as well as CC'ing the maintainers, so
> that everyone gets each message twice?
>
> Will someone be able to log into bugzilla as foo-owner?
>
> What happens to bugs marked as private?  If they're private to foo-owner
> then how will the actual maintainers see them?

I had similar question about FAS groups ... here is my PR which may
answer some of your questions:

https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/pull/414

While you are adding several interesting questions on top of that :)


Vít
___
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org