Hi,

Le 02/02/2016 16:09, Gabriele Cerami a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> first of all, I don't know how to sobscribe to this ml, or if it's the
> right place to post this discussion.

You can use mailman UI here, softwarefactory-dev is a public ML.
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev

> I wanted to share some ideas on how to integrate the tool called
> ginetics, that is automating the maintenance of the midstream OPM repos.
> 
> Briefly, this tool detects new merges on upstream projects, downloads
> and tests them before merging into the local repo. For repos that
> maintain mainly a rhos7-patches branch with the backports, it
> automatically tests the cherry-picking and then proposes reviews in
> gerrit when the cherry-pick passes tests. It's semi interactive, it's
> capable of responding to commands that can be inserted as comments to
> the review.
> I see that you intention is to use delorean for rdo for all the master
> branches in the projects. Delorean works at package level, not at repo
> level. If you don't care to maintain a secondary repo with local
> patches, delorean is the right thing to use. But if in any way you need
> a local repository to store local changes, gitnetics may be useful to
> identify problem even before creating the package.

So to summarize Gitnetic will help for such cases:
- we have a *-patches branch with some "not yet/never" included upstream changes
and where we want to cherry-pick upstream changes into it.
- we want to cherry-pick upstream changes into a "mirror" repository where we 
already
have included "not yet/never" included upstream changes.

Gitnetic is then able to take actions when the cherry-pick is not possible, like
warning the maintainer via a notification like a Gerrit review, ...

Let me know if I miss understood.

> For what I understand of software factory, it works well as primary
> pipeline for a set of projects, but if we are chasing another upstream
> project, with its own repositories,  it may need some manual import to
> use the sf pipeline.

Actually we have already imported all projects from rdoinfo (rdo.yml) into RPM 
factory.
This has been done by a tool called python-sfrdo. Let's take
an example: Nova:

python-sfrdo has created two repositories:
- nova
- nova-distgit

The first one is like a mirror repository.
http://rpmfactory.beta.rdoproject.org/r/gitweb?p=nova.git;a=summary
master and stable/liberty has been imported and those branches as well
as tags are synchronized from upstream every night by a periodic job
http://rpmfactory.beta.rdoproject.org/jenkins/job/upstream-update/654/consoleFull

We can easily I think configure which branches we want to sync, for now this 
is just the default.

This nova repository also include a liberty-patches branch where gerrit reviewes
are attached to store additional patches.

The second repository is just where the packaging lands:
http://rpmfactory.beta.rdoproject.org/r/gitweb?p=nova-distgit.git;a=summary
There is the rpm-master branch (for delorean) and a rdo-liberty branch for the
liberty packaging definition.

> I think the best approach may be to add another tab to the dashboard,
> called "upstream" where one can add and set up how to watch an existing
> upstream project. So for example, in the upstream tab, one can add a
> watch for the stable/kilo branch in puppet-nova, thus configuring a tool
> like gitnetics that will replicate upstream changes into sf
> repositories.

We haven't yet thought to tightly integrate such options in the dashboard.
We first try to implement RPM Factory features in a separate tool
called python-sfrdo and evaluate after if there are generic enough to backport
them in Software Factory.

But yes I think we can find a way to let a PTL/CORE member of a packaging
project to select the mechanism that will handle the sync of the "mirror" repo:

Classical: like we have today in RPM Factory: Naive sync of master and stable/*
periodically.
Gitnetic: Classical is deactivated and Gitnetic managed the sync of branches
from upstream in a smarter manner taking in account "not yet/never" included 
upstream changes
has been inserted in the branches.

> I don't want to add more or goo deeper than this, I'd like to know
> first if I understand correctly how sf is working and if what I propose
> may seem acceptable.

Alright, sure we need to adjust our understanding of each tools to integrate 
them
correctly.

Best regards,
Fabien

> Thanks.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwarefactory-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
Softwarefactory-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev

Reply via email to