On Thu, 2026-10-15 at 12:44 -0400, Stephen J Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026, at 12:05, Cristian Le via devel wrote: > > On 10/15/26 17:33, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > I think it only makes any sense to replace Bodhi as part of a larger > > > workflow redesign which is properly resourced and which *considers > > > Fedora's requirements from the start*, not as a kind of late add-on, as > > > unfortunately tends to be the case with RH efforts lately. > > > > Indeed I agree there. But I think we should give a feedback on why an > > approach that is currently being considered would not fit us. I am > > providing my feedback on that design, for example (and Miro Vadkerti is > > welcome to expand) one of the design that I see as being incompatible is > > that all of the features that we need would be part of a bigger > > application (testing-farm). But I see that as not being too useful for > > us because of the contribution process being in a different forge, > > having less flexibility to work on the specific features we need > > independent of the bigger service, less control in prototyping smaller > > changes in the stg infra like we do now. And I do suggest that having > > something more modular with smaller services could help us with those > > issues. And we do get a benefit from not taking on all parts of bodhi, > > e.g. the gating part that is common in both environments can be shared. > > > > So I do hope we can gather these kind of feedback and try to break the > > curse of the RH efforts not being compatible because Fedora needs are > > just an afterthought. > > > > > If we actually do re-design the whole Fedora build process around > > > Konflux, for e.g., it would make sense to look at whether it's feasible > > > to engineer Bodhi out at that point (and whether it actually saves time > > > and effort over just integrating Bodhi into the new process). I don't > > > see any value in trying to replace it within the current process > > > though. > > > > Actually this one of the things I think we should gather more info on. > > What is the big picture role of bodhi, and would any of the things be > > able to fill its shoes. Let me be more concrete with an example since > > the topic is brought up. > > > > Do we have a FULL image of the current build system with all of its many > resource requirements, feedback loops and side tools? The reason is that many > of the tools which go into getting packages from `fedpkg` -> > `mirrors.fedoraproject.org, quay.io, etc` tie into each other in ways not > readily documented in the past. There have been many times where taking X out > of the tree ended up breaking 2 or 3 other things which no one knew were > using X "because it did this one thing easily."
Aside from maybe in my head and Kevin's, I don't think we really do, no. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @[email protected] https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
