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? 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 _______________________________________________ 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
