On 2/27/19 9:24 PM, Chenxiong Qi wrote:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:32:01 AM CST Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:42 AM Chenxiong Qi <cqi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> This mail is for a new micro-service called Message-Tagging-Service (aka
>> MTS). It serves to tag module build triggered by specific MBS event.
>> More detailed information is provided inside RFR ticket[1].
>
>
> Thanks for working on this. In the ticket I agreed to be a sponsor for this
> RFR.
>
>> MTS works with a series of predefined rules to see if a module build
>> should be tagged with one or more tags. There is requirement coming from
>> module maintainers to ensure a module build is tagged into correct
>> platforms to fulfill the dependencies of module metadata. Comment[2] has
>> a specific use case for that.
>
>
> As a packager and module maintainer I agree that currently there are
> problems with tagging modules into appropriate tags. From what I heard
> there are no plans for MBS to fix this and we are expected to use MTS
> instead.
>
>
>> So far, MTS has been containerized and deployed in internal. The image
>> is available from quay.io[3]. We would love to run MTS in Fedora as well
>> in order to make it easier to manage module build tag for module
>> maintainers and rel-eng.
>
>
> I believe that using containers is allowed and expected these days and
> that the part of RFR process that relates to having the software
> packaged for EPEL 7 can be skipped.
>
>
>> If anything is missed for this mail thread, please point out. Questions
>> welcome! Thanks for your time.
>
>
> I have a couple of questions:
>
> 1. As I understand, MTS is driven by a configuration file
> (mts-rules.yaml) that specifies which modules should be tagged with
> which Koji tags. Where is this configuration going to be stored?
> Upstream image on quay.io? Fedora ansible.git? A different git
> repository?
Technically, the rule file could be anywhere that is accessible by a HTTP GET
operation to get the content. In practice to deploy MTS to Fedora, from my
point of view, it would be good for rule maintainers to use a git repository
so that they can review every changes to the rules.
@infra and @rel-eng guys, which way do you prefer to maintain the rule file,
and what is your opinion of which git repository should be used for storing
the rule file?
I guess the easiest would be the fedora infrastructure ansible repo.
We could use releng repo too I suppose. Mohan: any thoughts?
>
> 2. Who is going to maintain the above rules configuration? MTS
> maintainers listed in the ticket? Release engineering?
I have the same question actually. My understand of "Maintainership contacts"
is just for the service maintenance. I think rel-eng could be able to
determine which tag(s) should be applied to a specific module build.
Hopefully, rel-eng could help to maintain the content of rule file. @rel-eng,
what do you think?
I think releng makes sense to maintain this yes.
Is it likely to change a lot?
kevin