Re: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option
On Monday, 08 April 2019 at 20:13, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > On Monday, 8 April 2019 07:42:25 CEST Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 08. 04. 19 1:32, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end: > > > https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af > > > > > > It now handles all backend that Anitya supports. > > > > > > I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new > > > packages > > > being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new > > > hotness to pick them up. > > > > > > However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no- > > > monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb > > > and it seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many > > > bugs won't be filled even if the packages is outdated. > > > > > > I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track > > > updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So > > > we would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to > > > "monitoring". Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be > > > against such a change? Right now we have tons of packages left > > > unmaintained as a result. > > > > For some packages it makes sense to be able to opt-out. > > Some of them release versions that are not OK for Fedora, some only go > > released together with another packages, some release 3 times a day. > > There might be other reasons. > > > > I would suggest the following approach: > > > > 1. Switch everything that was converted from Pagure. Keep anything > > disabled by later commits. > > 2. Mass e-mail the affected maintainers about this with specific > > instructions to opt-out if needed. > > > > For the repo maintainers, I suggest demanding reasons before merging a Pull > > Request that sets a package to no-monitoring. > > I've identified 12889 packages which were imported with "no-monitoring". > I could mail all of the affected maintainers but the instructions to opt-out > are quite tedious and I fear the wrath of affected maintainers. > > Any affected people want to chime in? A number of packages I (co-)maintain are affected and I find the "opt-in" instructions quite tedious as well. I'd love to have an option in fedpkg or at least a toggle button on src.fedoraproject.org or apps.fedoraproject.org/packages similar to what was there in the old PkgDB. So, if anyone wants to turn on automated version monitoring and bug filling for the packages I maintain, you're welcome to do so. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option
On 4/7/19 9:27 PM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robert-André Mauchin" To: "Miro Hrončok" Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 1:32:58 AM Subject: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option Hello, I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end: https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af It now handles all backend that Anitya supports. I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new packages being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new hotness to pick them up. However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no- monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb and it seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many bugs won't be filled even if the packages is outdated. I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So we would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to "monitoring". Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be against such a change? Right now we have tons of packages left unmaintained as a result. I'm all for enabling monitoring everywhere, as I have myself lost way too many updates of my packages due to it being disabled after the migration from pkgdb. However I'd also like some simple way to opt out as well. Some packages have really aggressive release schedules (looking at you boto3) generating too much noise, and having to file PR's here [0], skimming through all the fedora rpm's to find my package in order to tweak release monitoring is really not the most intuitive approach. [0] https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms Indeed, a more reasonable approach was discussed recently[0]. I think it would be best if that (or something better) be implemented before flipping on monitoring in any large-scale way. [0] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RNUBMEG6GOY3V2LNXV7PX4P56CE4NSEN/#24A7EJZI4P6Q47XEUA52RWTOQVB2MU3Y ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option
On Monday, 8 April 2019 07:42:25 CEST Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 08. 04. 19 1:32, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end: > > https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af > > > > It now handles all backend that Anitya supports. > > > > I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new > > packages > > being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new > > hotness to pick them up. > > > > However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no- > > monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb > > and it seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many > > bugs won't be filled even if the packages is outdated. > > > > I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track > > updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So > > we would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to > > "monitoring". Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be > > against such a change? Right now we have tons of packages left > > unmaintained as a result. > > For some packages it makes sense to be able to opt-out. > Some of them release versions that are not OK for Fedora, some only go > released together with another packages, some release 3 times a day. > There might be other reasons. > > I would suggest the following approach: > > 1. Switch everything that was converted from Pagure. Keep anything > disabled by later commits. > 2. Mass e-mail the affected maintainers about this with specific > instructions to opt-out if needed. > > For the repo maintainers, I suggest demanding reasons before merging a Pull > Request that sets a package to no-monitoring. I've identified 12889 packages which were imported with "no-monitoring". I could mail all of the affected maintainers but the instructions to opt-out are quite tedious and I fear the wrath of affected maintainers. Any affected people want to chime in? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option
On 08. 04. 19 1:32, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: Hello, I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end: https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af It now handles all backend that Anitya supports. I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new packages being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new hotness to pick them up. However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no- monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb and it seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many bugs won't be filled even if the packages is outdated. I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So we would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to "monitoring". Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be against such a change? Right now we have tons of packages left unmaintained as a result. For some packages it makes sense to be able to opt-out. Some of them release versions that are not OK for Fedora, some only go released together with another packages, some release 3 times a day. There might be other reasons. I would suggest the following approach: 1. Switch everything that was converted from Pagure. Keep anything disabled by later commits. 2. Mass e-mail the affected maintainers about this with specific instructions to opt-out if needed. For the repo maintainers, I suggest demanding reasons before merging a Pull Request that sets a package to no-monitoring. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option
- Original Message - > From: "Robert-André Mauchin" > To: "Miro Hrončok" > Cc: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 1:32:58 AM > Subject: Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" > option > > Hello, > > I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end: > https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af > > It now handles all backend that Anitya supports. > > I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new packages > being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new > hotness to pick them up. > > However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no- > monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb and > it > seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many bugs won't > be filled even if the packages is outdated. > > I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track > updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So we > would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to "monitoring". > Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be against such a > change? > Right now we have tons of packages left unmaintained as a result. > > Best regards, > > Robert-André > > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > I'm all for enabling monitoring everywhere, as I have myself lost way too many updates of my packages due to it being disabled after the migration from pkgdb. However I'd also like some simple way to opt out as well. Some packages have really aggressive release schedules (looking at you boto3) generating too much noise, and having to file PR's here [0], skimming through all the fedora rpm's to find my package in order to tweak release monitoring is really not the most intuitive approach. [0] https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms -- Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Registering Python packages with Anitya and the "no-monitoring" option
Hello, I have worked on my script to register packages with Anitya this week-end: https://gist.github.com/eclipseo/fbc52aeebccb7f560221bd40ec28b6af It now handles all backend that Anitya supports. I have ran it on Python 2661 packages and this resulted in 637 new packages being registered. Michal Konecny still needs to do something for the new hotness to pick them up. However I already noticed that a large number of packages have set "no- monitoring" in Pagure. A lot of that are old packages ported from pkgdb and it seems it defaulted to "no-monitoring" back then. As a results many bugs won't be filled even if the packages is outdated. I wish we forbid the use of "no-monitoring" and force maintainers to track updates through Bugzilla, so updates are always linked to a bug number. So we would convert all existing packages from "no-monitoring" to "monitoring". Any input regarding this proposal? Would many of you be against such a change? Right now we have tons of packages left unmaintained as a result. Best regards, Robert-André ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
