Re: Non-responsive packagers: anoopcs, gtiwari, msehnout, sebix, vanessa_kris
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 15:41 +0530, Anoop C S via devel wrote: > On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 10:32 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 02:31:57PM +0530, Anoop C S wrote: > > > On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 09:57 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > > > > > The packagers listed here have been receiving a daily email > > > > asking > > > > them to > > > > either adjust their bugzilla or their FAS account so the email > > > > address in FAS > > > > matches an existing bugzilla account. > > > > > > > > Having a bugzilla account is mandatory per: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_a_Bugzilla_Account > > > > > > > > - anoopcs contacted since November 27th > > > > > > > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/glusterfs > > > > anoopcs is main admin of rpms/glusterfs-coreutils > > > > anoopcs has a bugzilla override on rpms/glusterfs-coreutils > > > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/richacl > > > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/samba > > > > anoopcs is watching rpms/socket_wrapper > > > > > > I am aware and was ignoring it based on the reply I got for the > > > ticket > > > raised[1] on the exact same issue. I also wanted to know where > > > the > > > ongoing work for making use of bugzilla field in FAS(I made > > > another > > > comment after ticket got closed) is being tracked. May be issue > > > #9863[2]? > > > > That's a question I do not have the answer to. > > > > Fine. I'll keep an eye on #9863 for now. > > > > Very recent request(via email) for bugzilla email validation gave > > > me an > > > impression that its finally gonna happen. > > > > It is being worked on but it is not ready yet (I expect that it > > will > > be > > announced once it is). > > > > > If not, how important it is to match both(FAS and bugzilla) email > > > addresses at this point? Or is it a requirement now to have same > > > email > > > address to get the work completed? Sorry, I am little confused. > > > > It is important as it breaks the sync from dist-git to bugzilla and > > for the > > entire component (package), so it impacts you as well as > > potentially > > any other > > co-maintainers or watchers of the packages you are linked to. > > > > Currently there are two ways to get this sync working: > > - either have a valid bugzilla account corresponding to your main > > FAS > > email > > May be not. > > > - add an override to manually map your main FAS email to your > > bugzilla account > > in: > > > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/openshift-apps/toddlers/templates/email_overrides.toml > > Ahaa..for the time being, I'll go for an email override. In that case > I hope a ticket is expected? PR #934[1] is up for review. Let me know if something else is required. [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/934 Thanks, Anoop C S. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Non-responsive packagers: anoopcs, gtiwari, msehnout, sebix, vanessa_kris
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 10:32 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 02:31:57PM +0530, Anoop C S wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 09:57 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > > > The packagers listed here have been receiving a daily email > > > asking > > > them to > > > either adjust their bugzilla or their FAS account so the email > > > address in FAS > > > matches an existing bugzilla account. > > > > > > Having a bugzilla account is mandatory per: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_a_Bugzilla_Account > > > > > > - anoopcs contacted since November 27th > > > > > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/glusterfs > > > anoopcs is main admin of rpms/glusterfs-coreutils > > > anoopcs has a bugzilla override on rpms/glusterfs-coreutils > > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/richacl > > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/samba > > > anoopcs is watching rpms/socket_wrapper > > > > I am aware and was ignoring it based on the reply I got for the > > ticket > > raised[1] on the exact same issue. I also wanted to know where the > > ongoing work for making use of bugzilla field in FAS(I made another > > comment after ticket got closed) is being tracked. May be issue > > #9863[2]? > > That's a question I do not have the answer to. > Fine. I'll keep an eye on #9863 for now. > > Very recent request(via email) for bugzilla email validation gave > > me an > > impression that its finally gonna happen. > > It is being worked on but it is not ready yet (I expect that it will > be > announced once it is). > > > If not, how important it is to match both(FAS and bugzilla) email > > addresses at this point? Or is it a requirement now to have same > > email > > address to get the work completed? Sorry, I am little confused. > > It is important as it breaks the sync from dist-git to bugzilla and > for the > entire component (package), so it impacts you as well as potentially > any other > co-maintainers or watchers of the packages you are linked to. > > Currently there are two ways to get this sync working: > - either have a valid bugzilla account corresponding to your main FAS > email May be not. > - add an override to manually map your main FAS email to your > bugzilla account > in: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/openshift-apps/toddlers/templates/email_overrides.toml Ahaa..for the time being, I'll go for an email override. In that case I hope a ticket is expected? Thanks for the pointers. -Anoop C S. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Non-responsive packagers: anoopcs, gtiwari, msehnout, sebix, vanessa_kris
On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 09:57 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > The packagers listed here have been receiving a daily email asking > them to > either adjust their bugzilla or their FAS account so the email > address in FAS > matches an existing bugzilla account. > > Having a bugzilla account is mandatory per: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_a_Bugzilla_Account > > - anoopcs contacted since November 27th > > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/glusterfs > anoopcs is main admin of rpms/glusterfs-coreutils > anoopcs has a bugzilla override on rpms/glusterfs-coreutils > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/richacl > anoopcs is maintainer of rpms/samba > anoopcs is watching rpms/socket_wrapper I am aware and was ignoring it based on the reply I got for the ticket raised[1] on the exact same issue. I also wanted to know where the ongoing work for making use of bugzilla field in FAS(I made another comment after ticket got closed) is being tracked. May be issue #9863[2]? Very recent request(via email) for bugzilla email validation gave me an impression that its finally gonna happen. If not, how important it is to match both(FAS and bugzilla) email addresses at this point? Or is it a requirement now to have same email address to get the work completed? Sorry, I am little confused. Regards, Anoop C S. [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10404 [2] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9863 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
