I am starting to use locally the fifloader.py and templates.fif.json
Is the "FuturWarning" message something to be worked on ? Is it
something you also have in your openQA servers ?
$./fifloader.py -w --filename xx.upstream templates.fif.json
FutureWarning: Possible nested set at position 7
not re.search(patrn, instance)
Input template data is valid
Generated template data is valid
Do you have lines with "Disabling cgroup usage ..." in the journalctl
of workers host ?
I noticed that since December 2019 after a dnf distro-sync
seems to be related to an upstream change
=== journalctl extract:
worker: [info] +++ setup notes +++
worker: [info] Start time: 2020-02-13 12:38:28
worker: [info] Running on abanb.tlslab.ibm.com:3 (Linux
5.4.8-200.fc31.ppc64le #1 SMP Mon Jan 6 16:29:22 UTC 2020 ppc64le)
worker: [info] Preparing cgroup to start isotovideo
worker: [warn] Disabling cgroup usage because cgroup creation
failed: mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd: Permission denied at
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/File.pm line 87.
worker: [info] You can define a custom slice with
OPENQA_CGROUP_SLICE or indicating the base mount with MOJO_CGROUP_FS.
worker: [info] Starting isotovideo container
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:42 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:37 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
> > Can you put the voting/polls idea in the form of a user story?
> I think #44 on the list I sent covers that:
> As a Fedora team member, I can vote +1/abstain/-1 on issues so that I
> can approve or deny proposals.
We would actually need several polls per ticket, so that we can vote on
Beta/Final Blocker/FE from a single discussion (and not 4 separate
tickets). I'll add that user story.
There's a post on the Community Blog:
and a thread on devel@:
explaining that CPE is considering 'the future of a git forge solution
which will be run by the CPE team on behalf of the Fedora Community',
i.e. possibly ditching Pagure. The named contenders so far are Pagure,
Gitlab and Github.
The devel@ thread is going to be the usual tire fire, but I think we
should write up something on this and send it to the Council (who are
supposed to represent the interests of Fedora 'communities' in this
process). Obviously we use Pagure for project hosting, issue tracking,
and we're also working on the new async blockerbugs process, which
relies on integration with Pagure.
Can folks (especially those working on the blockerbugs stuff) read
through the posts and think about what requirements we have here? I
don't think it's going to be useful to have a big argument about the
specific contenders here (see devel@ for that!) but it would be good to
write up what QA actually needs in a forge. I'll try and gather the
feedback and organize it into something to send to Council.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora