On Fri, 2021-06-25 at 15:42 -0400, Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> And sometimes this breakage is caused by other parts of the system. For
> example a kernel update caused breakage in Podman when it suddenly
> enabled overlay mounts, which no one had tried. We quickly fixed the
> container-selinux pac
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 9:43 PM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> And sometimes this breakage is caused by other parts of the system. For
> example a kernel update caused breakage in Podman when it suddenly
> enabled overlay mounts, which no one had tried. We quickly fixed the
> container-selinu
On 6/25/21 16:13, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:43 PM Daniel Walsh wrote:
On 6/25/21 10:25, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:15 AM Lokesh Mandvekar
wrote:
Hi list,
I own the rhcontainerbot account. Apologies it took so long to respond to this
thread. A number of
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:43 PM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> On 6/25/21 10:25, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:15 AM Lokesh Mandvekar
> > wrote:
> >> Hi list,
> >>
> >>
> >> I own the rhcontainerbot account. Apologies it took so long to respond to
> >> this thread. A number of legiti
On 6/25/21 10:25, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:15 AM Lokesh Mandvekar
wrote:
Hi list,
I own the rhcontainerbot account. Apologies it took so long to respond to this
thread. A number of legitimate concerns have been raised about the bot, so let
me address those below on behal
Dne 25. 06. 21 v 16:25 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
We will use openSUSE’s OBS for builds of the latest upstream commits for our
users who need the latest packages. We would need this to check if the latest
commits in podman work well with new kernel features and selinux.
We will also notify the cont
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 10:15 AM Lokesh Mandvekar
wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
>
> I own the rhcontainerbot account. Apologies it took so long to respond to
> this thread. A number of legitimate concerns have been raised about the bot,
> so let me address those below on behalf of the Containers team.
>
Hi list,
I own the rhcontainerbot account. Apologies it took so long to respond to
this thread. A number of legitimate concerns have been raised about the
bot, so let me address those below on behalf of the Containers team.
1.
We have disabled all autobuilds for now.
2.
The podman
On June 22, 2021 1:26:30 PM UTC, "Miroslav Suchý" wrote:
>Dne 20. 06. 21 v 10:42 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>> Rather than "no bots allowed" policy, we might need a "bots that
>violate our policies and guidelines or have a
>> tendency to break things will be disabled until fixed" policy.
>
>Every
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:48:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Matthew was referring to a plan (AIUI) to have two locations where
> "Rawhide" composes would be synced, one where all completed composes
> would be synced (as today), one where only composes that passed gating
> would be synced. I
On Tue, 2021-06-22 at 18:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:42 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Matthew Miller:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:48:15AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > We've talked about various concerns around this in the past (the
> > > > techn
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:42 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Matthew Miller:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:48:15AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> We've talked about various concerns around this in the past (the
> >> technicalities of exactly how to implement it, and the concern that not
> >>
* Matthew Miller:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:48:15AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> We've talked about various concerns around this in the past (the
>> technicalities of exactly how to implement it, and the concern that not
>> enough composes actually meet the requirements so we'd wind up with
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:48:15AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We've talked about various concerns around this in the past (the
> technicalities of exactly how to implement it, and the concern that not
> enough composes actually meet the requirements so we'd wind up with few
> composes synced a
Dne 20. 06. 21 v 10:42 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Rather than "no bots allowed" policy, we might need a "bots that violate our policies and guidelines or have a
tendency to break things will be disabled until fixed" policy.
Every bot has been written by somebody. 1) it should be always clear who
On Mon, 2021-06-21 at 10:48 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 11:41:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 03:26:52PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah. I'm looking a the original ticket in
> > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2228, and I th
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 7:09 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
> > becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
> > existing Updates Policy [1] to make it explicit that bots are not
> > allowed to submit builds
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 07:34:03AM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Bodhi has a config setting ('automatic_updates_blacklist') which can
> avoid specific users/bots to automatically create updates.
>
> If those bots are supposed to only test Koji builds, but not pushing
> updates we can list
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:50 AM Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 11:41:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 03:26:52PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah. I'm looking a the original ticket in
> > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2228, and I th
On 21. 06. 21 11:48, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I don't think there's a policy against this, but apart from podman, I
cannot recall seeing maintainers/dev teams give karma to their own
packages' updates. I don't think that works---the idea of Bodhi is to
allow ample opportunity for*others* to test the
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 11:41:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 03:26:52PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > Yeah. I'm looking a the original ticket in
> > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2228, and I think this was a mistake.
> > We shouldn't have approved a bot tha
Bodhi has a config setting ('automatic_updates_blacklist') which can
avoid specific users/bots to automatically create updates.
If those bots are supposed to only test Koji builds, but not pushing
updates we can list them out using that setting.
Mattia
___
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 7:19 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 08:37:03AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 20 2021 at 07:29:16 AM -0400, Neal Gompa
> > wrote:
> > >Most of our rules are designed to make sure there's someone ultimately
> > >responsibl
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 8:45 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> My question would be: Are these automated builds otherwise known working
> and ready for integration testing with the rest of the distribution in
> rawhide?
>
> If they are, we (just) need to fix the bot to not do the wrong thing.
>
> If they
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 1:30 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
...snip...
> >
> > Rawhide is still not your CI environment.
>
> By the way I think we need to reconsider this statement.
I think we should turn it around and say:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 03:26:52PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> Yeah. I'm looking a the original ticket in
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2228, and I think this was a mistake.
> We shouldn't have approved a bot that packages snapshot commits for
> rawhide. In the discussion, we t
On Sun, 2021-06-20 at 10:42 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 20. 06. 21 9:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I think we should just disable this particular bot until it fixed.
> > We should also clarify/update the Update Guidelines so that
> > undesirable
> > updates are disallowed, no matte
Miro Hrončok writes:
>> - releng and SIGs submitting scripted mass rebuilds (no actual package
>> changes, triggered by a person)
>> - bots submitting rawhide builds for ELN (no package change, just
>> built for different buildroot)
> Other random ideas of what should be allowed:
> - a human app
On Sun, 2021-06-20 at 12:52 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Rawhide is still not your CI environment. Years ago, we got rid of
> > alphas for the express purpose to stabilize Rawhide into alpha
> > quality. Stuff like this degrades the quality of Rawhide because they
> > make the assumption that n
Dnia Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:39:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok napisał(a):
> On 19. 06. 21 22:18, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > The following things should still be allowed:
> > - releng and SIGs submitting scripted mass rebuilds (no actual package
> > changes, triggered by a person)
> > - bots submitting r
On Sun, 2021-06-20 at 07:29 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> If you want the features of Rawhide for CI, then we should talk about
> enabling this in more places. For example, there's no technical reason
> we couldn't do OpenQA runs for packages in COPR. There are serious
> consequences to shipping pa
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:55:00AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:45 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a good idea. This particular bot has a history of
> > misbehavior
> > and rather than banning all the well behaving bots (that be definition we
> > don'
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 08:37:03AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20 2021 at 07:29:16 AM -0400, Neal Gompa
> wrote:
> >Most of our rules are designed to make sure there's someone ultimately
> >responsible for everything going into Fedora. Unfortunately, bots are
> >the opposite of t
On Sun, Jun 20 2021 at 07:29:16 AM -0400, Neal Gompa
wrote:
Most of our rules are designed to make sure there's someone ultimately
responsible for everything going into Fedora. Unfortunately, bots are
the opposite of that, because there's no one to reach to stop bad
behavior when it happens.
H
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 1:30 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 7:10 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
> > > becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
> > > existing Updates Policy [1
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 12:31 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 7:10 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
> > > becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
> > > existing Updates Policy [1] to
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 7:10 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
> > becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
> > existing Updates Policy [1] to make it explicit that bots are not
> > allowed to submit builds
> With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
> becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
> existing Updates Policy [1] to make it explicit that bots are not
> allowed to submit builds / updates - even to rawhide - unattended:
> "Rawhide is not your
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 10:45 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> I think this is a good idea. This particular bot has a history of misbehavior
> and rather than banning all the well behaving bots (that be definition we
> don't
> even know about, because they behave good), we should disable this particula
On 20. 06. 21 9:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I think we should just disable this particular bot until it fixed.
We should also clarify/update the Update Guidelines so that undesirable
updates are disallowed, no matter if submitted by a bot or a human.
I think this is a good idea. This
On 19. 06. 21 22:18, Fabio Valentini wrote:
The following things should still be allowed:
- releng and SIGs submitting scripted mass rebuilds (no actual package
changes, triggered by a person)
- bots submitting rawhide builds for ELN (no package change, just
built for different buildroot)
Other
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
> becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
> existing Updates Policy [1] to make it explicit that bots are not
> allow
Hi everybody,
With things like [0] (TL;DR: bots submitting broken builds to rawhide)
becoming a more regular occurrence, I propose that we extend the
existing Updates Policy [1] to make it explicit that bots are not
allowed to submit builds / updates - even to rawhide - unattended:
"Rawhide is not
43 matches
Mail list logo
