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@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? I'm not sure if I'm a right person to answer this question. :) But, base on the experience of internal usage so far, I guess once a set of rules are determined to tag specific module builds, it should not be changed a lot except new rules to be added. It should be case by case for the use in Fedora. We could learn more after MTS is up to serve the tagging. Regards, Chenxiong Qi > > kevin _______________________________________________ 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
