On Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:24:04 PM CST 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?
> 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?
> 3. MTS requires a Koji user (and corresponding Kerberos keytab) with
> no special permissions, which it would use to tag module builds. Koji
> users are managed by release engineering. Does release engineering
> agree to have MTS used in Fedora? I think it would be good to open a
> releng ticket for them to explicitly agree on the proposal.
I wasn't aware of this yet. I'll file an ticket to ask for agreement.
Ticket is created
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8176
> 4. Do the people listed as MTS maintainers agree to sign-up for its
> maintenance? It would be good if they at least acknowledged this in
> the ticket.
@Luzi @Valerij Can you please ack in the ticket?
> --
> Mikolaj
> _______________________________________________
> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> infrastructure-leave(a)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.fedorap
> r
>
oject.org