On Sunday, March 3, 2019 5:23:20 AM CST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
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?
Hi Mohan, any thoughts so far?
What should I do to request a repo in whatever releng repo or the fedora
infrastructure ansible repo?
>> 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