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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
