Re: Factory2/Infra sync up meeting - May 2018
On 05/17/2018 05:02 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > I don't > think it's reasonable to state that it's the only valid means. After re-reading your message, I realized that I may have misinterpreted your words a bit more strongly than perhaps they were intended to be. Please accept my apology if you hadn't intended to convey what I quoted here. ___ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/I7YBRIKMD76ZXGTO4LCRIUNMICPJEOYE/
Re: Factory2/Infra sync up meeting - May 2018
On 05/17/2018 01:10 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > We went over the event that lead to disabling gating in bodhi last week > (see fesco ticket: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1872) > If this situation happens again we encourage a stronger reach out for help > from > the folks involved (in this case Ralph or Dan Callaghan (dcallagh) who hangs > on > #fedora-admin and was around while the discussion was happening), by stronger > we are putting down a phone call or a text as valid means. The use of the word valid seems to imply that we did not reach out in a valid way. I don't think IRC should be considered invalid - it's one of the primary ways our community operates. Consider that packagers don't all have the phone numbers of the people who can help. I also don't think admins should be burdened with phone calls every time a packager has trouble with this. About 7% of updates needed to be waived as of last week[2] - it would have been quite a burden to resolve those via phone calls. I appreciate the offer to support problems via personal cell phones, and I may even take that offer up one day, but I don't think it's reasonable to state that it's the only valid means. Further, we need a system that packagers can use without needing admin help - supporting the current system is not scalable (especially if phone calls are needed). I don't think a phone call would have changed the outcome here - even if we had been able to get that one update through, the experience[3] was ample evidence that the system places an unreasonable burden onto packagers, and that disabling it was in the best interest[1] of the Fedora project. We do have a solid plan going forward. In the next days I plan to fix one Bodhi bug[0] that blocks it from integrating with Greenwave. Once that is in place, Bodhi's test gating setting can be turned back on. Greenwave is currently configured to pass all updates. Soon, Greenwave will gain a feature that will let packagers opt-in to test gating in Greenwave. We will use this to gain feedback from packagers who have opted in (I plan to opt in some of my packagers). Once we believe the packager experience around test gating is reasonable based on this feedback, we plan to enforce tests across all packages as we did before. [0] https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/2368 [1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1872#comment-511238 [2] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1872#comment-511305 [3] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1872#comment-511253 ___ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/THRYW3N7KPMWM3ZRBZQWZ43C5PK7VCGB/
Factory2/Infra sync up meeting - May 2018
Greeting, Last Monday Ralph and I had our monthly meeting for Factory2/Infra sync up. We went over the event that lead to disabling gating in bodhi last week (see fesco ticket: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1872) If this situation happens again we encourage a stronger reach out for help from the folks involved (in this case Ralph or Dan Callaghan (dcallagh) who hangs on #fedora-admin and was around while the discussion was happening), by stronger we are putting down a phone call or a text as valid means. We talked about PDC, as you may recall PDC is being decomissioned upstream leaving us with no maintainer upstream. Since the team is currently quite busy with other priorities we agreed to restart this discussion in early June with all parties who expressed interest on the thread on this list. Finally, Ralph explained the new workflow they put in place to deploy their images in our openshift. This is all documented in: https://pagure.io/infra-docs/pull-request/109 Folks are welcomed to take a look at it and comment with their thoughts on the process. In short:images are built and hosted in quay, the latest tag is automatically added if the image passes testing, openshift in staging is configured to pull from the latest tag. Then a "prod" tag can be manually added to an images that openshift will pull in prod. @patrick: with your security officer hat, does this sound good to you ^? If not, the Factory crew is willing to look at other options. Hoping this is helpful, Pierre ___ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QKZ26W4MAHU76D2RM3ICVFWXH6KOIGFN/
Re: IRC oncall
On 05/16/2018 07:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> If I recall, alerts are pretty easily accessible. You can poke around on >> Nagios if there are issues. Obviously if everything is down/red, it's not a >> good time to ask for help with your ssh access. > > Indeed. Yep. Nagios is pretty available to all. > > I can try and make sure I note exactly what I am doing to clear an > alert... sometimes I am bad about saying "fixing that" or "poking that" > without saying what exactly is going on. That's a good idea, and I noticed you already started doing this, thanks Kevin. To expand a bit on this, I logged/explained in more detail [1] what I did when working on one random issue. Since it was in staging, I could take some time to copy relevant commands and write down my thought process. Apprentices, if comments like this are useful, please let me know. [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6918#comment-512552 -- Mikolaj Izdebski Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat IRC: mizdebsk ___ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora and PDC
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:09:21AM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: > Hi, is it too late? I want to help as well. No it's not too late, PDC is currently a little bit on the back fire due to other priorities but we'll need to get back to it (I expect around early June). I will gather all parties who expressed interest in this thread in a meeting so we can move this forward then :) Thanks for your interest! Pierre ___ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
