Hi all,
Today jlanda, austinpowered and mizdebsk discussed about ticket https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8157 in #fedora-admin and came up with a few questions on how to implement that solution that I think would be nice to share with the wider group.
There are basically 2 possibility :
1 - We run ansible-report as a pre-commit hook This means that ansible-report will be run locally before a contributor commit a change. This is not ideal since our contributor are running all kind systems (rhel, fedora, windows ?) so having something that work well for everyone will not be simple. Also this forces our contributors to install ansible-report locally.
2 - We run ansible-report as a pre-receive hook This means that ansible-report is run on batcave01, but we cannot run ansible-report just on a commit, we need to run the tool against the full repository every time. That involve making a clone of the repo applying the changes in the incoming commit, then run ansible-report on that repository.
This has also a few disadvantages, first we first need to clear all the errors reported by ansible-report in our repo before we enable the hook otherwise all commits will be rejected. It will also slows down every pushes (time to clone, apply patch, run the tool).
Do people have other ideas ? Is this change worth the trouble ?
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 15:03 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
There are basically 2 possibility :
There are other possibilities too, such as putting the repo on gitlab.com and using their CI on pull requests
Can’t we do this on Pagure with CentOS CI?
Thank you.
regards,
bex
.
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 16:47, Brian (bex) Exelbierd bexelbie@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 3:28 PM Randy Barlow bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 15:03 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
There are basically 2 possibility :
There are other possibilities too, such as putting the repo on gitlab.com and using their CI on pull requests
Can’t we do this on Pagure with CentOS CI?
I think the main reason why we don't already have it on Pagure is that we don't want to be dependent of our own infrastructure to host this repo. It currently lives on the batcave01 host which is the box we use to deploy our infrastructure. So to me if we are going to host this repository on a git forge I think using an external service would make sense. Of course we would then be dependent on a third party but I think that the % of availability of GitHub or GitLab is much higher than ours, they have dedicated teams working on making sure their service is available when we struggle to keep all our infra running. Also their main business and expertise is to run a git forge service, they have the infrastructure and the hardware for that, while our main business is to build and release a Linux distribution (A really good one :-)
After I am not really interested in a long debate in regards of where that repo should be hosted, to me what matters is that we should have the Fedora Community in only one place be it GitLab like the Gnome community or GitHub where we already have fedora-infra, fedora-cloud, fedora CoreOS.
Just my 2 cents :-)
Thank you.
regards,
bex
.
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
-- Brian "bex" Exelbierd (he/him/his) Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator @bexelbie | http://www.winglemeyer.org bexelbie@redhat.com | bex@pobox.com _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:04 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
I think the main reason why we don't already have it on Pagure is that we don't want to be dependent of our own infrastructure to host this repo. It currently lives on the batcave01 host which is the box we use to deploy our infrastructure. So to me if we are going to host this repository on a git forge I think using an external service would make sense.
+1
Of course we would then be dependent on a third party
Well, since git itself is a distributed scm, we aren't really dependent. I bet there are many many copies of the Ansible repo on all of our laptops (I have it on my laptop and on a local repospanner forge in my house right now!). So even if we had it on Git* and that thing went down, we still have like a hundred other copies of it.
I think that the % of availability of GitHub or GitLab is much higher than ours, they have dedicated teams working on making sure their service is available when we struggle to keep all our infra running. Also their main business and expertise is to run a git forge service, they have the infrastructure and the hardware for that, while our main business is to build and release a Linux distribution (A really good one :-)
+1
After I am not really interested in a long debate in regards of where that repo should be hosted, to me what matters is that we should have the Fedora Community in only one place be it GitLab like the Gnome community or GitHub where we already have fedora-infra, fedora-cloud, fedora CoreOS.
Yeah GitHub and GitLab are both great.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 02:33:02PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:04 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
I think the main reason why we don't already have it on Pagure is that we don't want to be dependent of our own infrastructure to host this repo. It currently lives on the batcave01 host which is the box we use to deploy our infrastructure. So to me if we are going to host this repository on a git forge I think using an external service would make sense.
I don't agree, unless we move/have all/more of our presense there.
ie, I don't want to move just the fedora infrastructure ansible repo to say gitlab and have it there by itself. I think thats really poor for discoverability, etc.
...snip...
After I am not really interested in a long debate in regards of where that repo should be hosted, to me what matters is that we should have the Fedora Community in only one place be it GitLab like the Gnome community or GitHub where we already have fedora-infra, fedora-cloud, fedora CoreOS.
Yeah, but any such move will be a long debate I fear.
Yeah GitHub and GitLab are both great.
Well, from a end user perspective, yes.
There are ideological issues with both, github isn't open source, gitlab is open core and has been making odd decisions of late (see the 'we are going to collect metrics on everything" and "we don't drop customers due to their political views").
But to get back to the initial question here...
It sounds like adding the hook now as things are doesn't make too much sense? Althought we could run a daily report or something that points out issues after they have been commited (so at least we fix it).
Short term, I'm very keen to have ansible repo PR's. So, perhaps we could work something to move it to pagure soon (either repospanner if we can handle the performance, or just git on pagure we mirror some way)? Happy to discuss this in our meeting thursday? or some other time.
Longer term, yeah, we may want to move to gitlab/github, but I don't think the ansible repo is something I want to be a scout or outlyer, I'd want us to have a plan and move things in a coordinated way. I think thats a bigger discussion we need to have.
kevin
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 18:42, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 02:33:02PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:04 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
I think the main reason why we don't already have it on Pagure is that we don't want to be dependent of our own infrastructure to host this repo. It currently lives on the batcave01 host which is the box we use to deploy our infrastructure. So to me if we are going to host this repository on a git forge I think using an external service would make sense.
I don't agree, unless we move/have all/more of our presense there.
ie, I don't want to move just the fedora infrastructure ansible repo to say gitlab and have it there by itself. I think thats really poor for discoverability, etc.
Yes I agree with you.
...snip...
After I am not really interested in a long debate in regards of where that repo should be hosted, to me what matters is that we should have the Fedora Community in only one place be it GitLab like the Gnome community or GitHub where we already have fedora-infra, fedora-cloud, fedora CoreOS.
Yeah, but any such move will be a long debate I fear.
Yeah GitHub and GitLab are both great.
Well, from a end user perspective, yes.
There are ideological issues with both, github isn't open source, gitlab is open core and has been making odd decisions of late (see the 'we are going to collect metrics on everything" and "we don't drop customers due to their political views").
But to get back to the initial question here...
It sounds like adding the hook now as things are doesn't make too much sense? Althought we could run a daily report or something that points out issues after they have been commited (so at least we fix it).
Short term, I'm very keen to have ansible repo PR's. So, perhaps we could work something to move it to pagure soon (either repospanner if we can handle the performance, or just git on pagure we mirror some way)? Happy to discuss this in our meeting thursday? or some other time.
+1
Longer term, yeah, we may want to move to gitlab/github, but I don't think the ansible repo is something I want to be a scout or outlyer, I'd want us to have a plan and move things in a coordinated way. I think thats a bigger discussion we need to have.
+1
kevin _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:30 AM Clement Verna cverna@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 18:42, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 02:33:02PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:04 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
I think the main reason why we don't already have it on Pagure is that we don't want to be dependent of our own infrastructure to host this repo. It currently lives on the batcave01 host which is the box we use to deploy our infrastructure. So to me if we are going to host this repository on a git forge I think using an external service would make sense.
I don't agree, unless we move/have all/more of our presense there.
ie, I don't want to move just the fedora infrastructure ansible repo to say gitlab and have it there by itself. I think thats really poor for discoverability, etc.
Yes I agree with you.
Please forgive the "new guy" ignorance, but I'm trying to understand why Fedora Infrastructure wouldn't want to host its project on Fedora Pagure. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food?
...snip...
After I am not really interested in a long debate in regards of where that repo should be hosted, to me what matters is that we should have the Fedora Community in only one place be it GitLab like the Gnome community or GitHub where we already have fedora-infra, fedora-cloud, fedora CoreOS.
Yeah, but any such move will be a long debate I fear.
And open debate is just one of the benefits of open source. I'm learning from this discussion which is why I joined the project.
Yeah GitHub and GitLab are both great.
Well, from a end user perspective, yes.
There are ideological issues with both, github isn't open source, gitlab is open core and has been making odd decisions of late (see the 'we are going to collect metrics on everything" and "we don't drop customers due to their political views").
But to get back to the initial question here...
It sounds like adding the hook now as things are doesn't make too much sense? Althought we could run a daily report or something that points out issues after they have been commited (so at least we fix it).
+1
Short term, I'm very keen to have ansible repo PR's. So, perhaps we could work something to move it to pagure soon (either repospanner if we can handle the performance, or just git on pagure we mirror some way)? Happy to discuss this in our meeting thursday? or some other time.
+1
+1
Longer term, yeah, we may want to move to gitlab/github, but I don't think the ansible repo is something I want to be a scout or outlyer, I'd want us to have a plan and move things in a coordinated way. I think thats a bigger discussion we need to have.
+1
+1
kevin _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:27:48PM +0000, T.C. Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:30 AM Clement Verna cverna@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 18:42, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 02:33:02PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 19:04 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
I think the main reason why we don't already have it on Pagure is that we don't want to be dependent of our own infrastructure to host this repo. It currently lives on the batcave01 host which is the box we use to deploy our infrastructure. So to me if we are going to host this repository on a git forge I think using an external service would make sense.
I don't agree, unless we move/have all/more of our presense there.
ie, I don't want to move just the fedora infrastructure ansible repo to say gitlab and have it there by itself. I think thats really poor for discoverability, etc.
Yes I agree with you.
Please forgive the "new guy" ignorance, but I'm trying to understand why Fedora Infrastructure wouldn't want to host its project on Fedora Pagure. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food?
Sure, but there's discussion if it's a better use of our time to stop maintaining pagure and just switch to one of the 'big' forges. They have tons more people, time, energy.
All that said, nothing is decided as far as I know.
kevin
For option 2, it could feasible to cutdown the cloning time from git push . the process will continue to slowdown the push, but not so much. It's just theory, but it might work:
1. We keep an updated master working copy somewhere else: ci working copy 2. On pre-receive hook, we create a branch on ci working copy, apply the commited patches, run ansible-report . if ansible-report returns 0, we move master to the same ref where the testing branch is, otherwise we checkout master and delete the testing branch
That will reduce the testing time since we will not clone the repo on every commit.
Anyhow, I feel that we are planning to emulate a CI system that runs tests on a PR and automerge them on success with custom bare git hooks, and this will be a long-term headache to maintain.
So, is there any benefit on doing this instead of planning a PR+CI+automerge on success with existing tools?
Regards and happy friday for all,
On October 25, 2019 3:03:36 PM GMT+02:00, Clement Verna cverna@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi all,
Today jlanda, austinpowered and mizdebsk discussed about ticket https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8157 in #fedora-admin and came up with a few questions on how to implement that solution that I think would be nice to share with the wider group.
There are basically 2 possibility :
1 - We run ansible-report as a pre-commit hook This means that ansible-report will be run locally before a contributor commit a change. This is not ideal since our contributor are running all kind systems (rhel, fedora, windows ?) so having something that work well for everyone will not be simple. Also this forces our contributors to install ansible-report locally.
2 - We run ansible-report as a pre-receive hook This means that ansible-report is run on batcave01, but we cannot run ansible-report just on a commit, we need to run the tool against the full repository every time. That involve making a clone of the repo applying the changes in the incoming commit, then run ansible-report on that repository.
This has also a few disadvantages, first we first need to clear all the errors reported by ansible-report in our repo before we enable the hook otherwise all commits will be rejected. It will also slows down every pushes (time to clone, apply patch, run the tool).
Do people have other ideas ? Is this change worth the trouble ?
Thanks
Julen Landa Alustiza jlanda@fedoraproject.org
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Brian (bex) Exelbierd -
Clement Verna -
Julen Landa Alustiza -
Kevin Fenzi -
Randy Barlow -
T.C. Williams