On 3/18/19 6:53 PM, Chenxiong Qi wrote: > 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? Well, it wouldn't be a seperate repo, it would just be some content added to our ansible repo. :) So, once you have content, I guess open a fedora-infrastructure ticket and we can get it added. We hope to have PR support soon, so if thats ready you could also just submit a PR with the new files. 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
