[EPEL-devel] Re: Orphaning EPEL Branches
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 9:00 PM Maxwell G wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:49:15 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote: > > > * The Pagure API does not allow tagging existing issues. I had planned to > > > liberally use tags to manage the issues. > > > > What? You can do this with the "update issue information" API call: > > https://pagure.io/api/0/#issues-tab > > According to the documentation, the only valid inputs to "Update issue > information" are "title" and "issue_content". https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/ > 4761 was opened for this and never closed. Is there some undocumented > parameter? > Nope, I misread this. Sorry. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[EPEL-devel] Re: Orphaning EPEL Branches
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:49:15 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote: > > * The Pagure API does not allow tagging existing issues. I had planned to > > liberally use tags to manage the issues. > > What? You can do this with the "update issue information" API call: > https://pagure.io/api/0/#issues-tab According to the documentation, the only valid inputs to "Update issue information" are "title" and "issue_content". https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/ 4761 was opened for this and never closed. Is there some undocumented parameter? -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[EPEL-devel] Re: Orphaning EPEL Branches
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 8:42 PM Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 4:07:29 PM CDT Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 12:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote: > > > > We could create an issue tracker for this. Packagers would have to > > > > submit a ticket requesting to orphan a certain package's EPEL branch(es) > > > > and set the EPEL Bugzilla assignee to "orphan" if they're orphaning all > > > > active EPEL branches. epel-devel@ could be CC'd on all issues. Then, we > > > > could have a provenpackager in the SIG go through and manually retire > > > > the packages that haven't been picked up after six weeks. The later will > > > > be difficult if we have a large volume, but I don't expect that. We > > > > could script this if necessary or just ask the submitter to do it > > > > themself. > > > > > > > > This doesn't allow picking up packages in a self-service manner, but I > > > > don't think that's a huge deal for our case. > > > > After some discussion in our weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting > > Maxwell's idea seems to lead the way. > > Maxwell has setup of pagure repo, to track these orphan issues. > > A pagure repo gives us the opportunity to have a nice README that people > > can see if they are unsure of the process. > > A pagure issue also seems more user friendly than a bugzilla. Both for the > > person creating the issue, and for others tracking it. > > > > https://pagure.io/epel/package-orphan-requests > > > So, I've started working on this. So far, I have a structured issue template, > and I've started writing a tool to go through the issues and act on them > (creating an announcement, etc. > While I had originally wanted to use a Pagure issue tracker, I decided to > switch to Gitlab half way through. There were three reasons: > > * The Pagure API does not allow tagging existing issues. I had planned to > liberally use tags to manage the issues. What? You can do this with the "update issue information" API call: https://pagure.io/api/0/#issues-tab This is done by the CentOS Hyperscale folks for the package-updates tracker: https://pagure.io/centos-sig-hyperscale/package-updates The automation for it is present in that repo. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[EPEL-devel] Re: Orphaning EPEL Branches
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 4:07:29 PM CDT Troy Dawson wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 12:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote: > > > We could create an issue tracker for this. Packagers would have to > > > submit a ticket requesting to orphan a certain package's EPEL branch(es) > > > and set the EPEL Bugzilla assignee to "orphan" if they're orphaning all > > > active EPEL branches. epel-devel@ could be CC'd on all issues. Then, we > > > could have a provenpackager in the SIG go through and manually retire > > > the packages that haven't been picked up after six weeks. The later will > > > be difficult if we have a large volume, but I don't expect that. We > > > could script this if necessary or just ask the submitter to do it > > > themself. > > > > > > This doesn't allow picking up packages in a self-service manner, but I > > > don't think that's a huge deal for our case. > > After some discussion in our weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting > Maxwell's idea seems to lead the way. > Maxwell has setup of pagure repo, to track these orphan issues. > A pagure repo gives us the opportunity to have a nice README that people > can see if they are unsure of the process. > A pagure issue also seems more user friendly than a bugzilla. Both for the > person creating the issue, and for others tracking it. > > https://pagure.io/epel/package-orphan-requests So, I've started working on this. So far, I have a structured issue template, and I've started writing a tool to go through the issues and act on them (creating an announcement, etc. While I had originally wanted to use a Pagure issue tracker, I decided to switch to Gitlab half way through. There were three reasons: * The Pagure API does not allow tagging existing issues. I had planned to liberally use tags to manage the issues. * Gitlab already has a nice Python wrapper (python-gitlab), which is much easier to work with. * It's more future proof, as the state of Pagure in Fedora is a bit up in the air. I really appreciate Pagure, and I wanted to make it work, but I'm trying to be pragmatic. Currently, the plan for identity verification is to make sure the sure the user is a member of the Fedora group on Gitlab. For non-matching usernames, I should be able to provide a dedicated field for that and cross reference the custom username with the FAS Gitlab field. Does anybody know if it's possible to limit issue submissions to only Fedora members while keeping the issue tracker public? That would make this easier. I have one question: who should be able to orphan EPEL branches? In Fedora, it's only the main admin. Do we also want to open this up to people with other privileges? Currently, anybody with any type of write permissions on a repository can retire the package. If the actual people who maintain the EPEL branches don't have permissions to orphan EPEL branches, I worry it will make the policy ineffective. > The policy isn't setup yet, but we are moving in the right direction. Indeed :). -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[EPEL-devel] Re: Orphaning EPEL Branches
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 12:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote: > > We could create an issue tracker for this. Packagers would have to > > submit a ticket requesting to orphan a certain package's EPEL branch(es) > > and set the EPEL Bugzilla assignee to "orphan" if they're orphaning all > > active EPEL branches. epel-devel@ could be CC'd on all issues. Then, we > > could have a provenpackager in the SIG go through and manually retire > > the packages that haven't been picked up after six weeks. The later will > > be difficult if we have a large volume, but I don't expect that. We > > could script this if necessary or just ask the submitter to do it > > themself. > > > > This doesn't allow picking up packages in a self-service manner, but I > > don't think that's a huge deal for our case. > After some discussion in our weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting Maxwell's idea seems to lead the way. Maxwell has setup of pagure repo, to track these orphan issues. A pagure repo gives us the opportunity to have a nice README that people can see if they are unsure of the process. A pagure issue also seems more user friendly than a bugzilla. Both for the person creating the issue, and for others tracking it. https://pagure.io/epel/package-orphan-requests The policy isn't setup yet, but we are moving in the right direction. Troy ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[EPEL-devel] Re: Orphaning EPEL Branches
On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 10:05:40PM +0200, Maxwell G via epel-devel wrote: > Hi EPEL folks, > > In the past couple EPEL SCo meetings, we have been discussing adding a > new package retirement policy for EPEL packages. That reads amusingly to me... to be clear 'new policy' not 'new packages'. ...snip... > > Here are my thoughts: > > If an entire Fedora package that has (an) EPEL branch(es) is orphaned, > the EPEL branch(es) should probably be orphaned at the same time as the > rawhide branch. Otherwise, we'd have to treat only orphaning an EPEL > branch as a special case: > > We could create an issue tracker for this. Packagers would have to > submit a ticket requesting to orphan a certain package's EPEL branch(es) > and set the EPEL Bugzilla assignee to "orphan" if they're orphaning all > active EPEL branches. epel-devel@ could be CC'd on all issues. Then, we > could have a provenpackager in the SIG go through and manually retire > the packages that haven't been picked up after six weeks. The later will > be difficult if we have a large volume, but I don't expect that. We > could script this if necessary or just ask the submitter to do it > themself. > > This doesn't allow picking up packages in a self-service manner, but I > don't think that's a huge deal for our case. > > > [1]: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages/#_orphaning_and_retiring_packages I'm not sure we want to CC epel-devel on these, perhaps we could have a script that processes them once a week or so and sends a summary to the list? But I am not sure how much volume we would expect here. ;( I wonder if we could get some cycles from developers to adjust pagure-dist-git for this case to make it more self-service. (taking orphan packages over). kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
