Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 22:11, Jim Perrin wrote: > > How much heresy is involved in us using Amazon's elasticsearch service > for this, so that we don't have yet-another-thing to maintain? If we want to proceed with elasticsearch I think that this is indeed a good way forward. What would it take

Re: RFR: Message-Tagging-Service

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:24:04 PM CST 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 wrote: > > > This mail is for a new micro-service called Message-Tagging-Service (aka > > > MTS). It serves to

Re: RFR: Message-Tagging-Service

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:32:01 AM CST Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 6:42 AM Chenxiong Qi 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

Re: Future of fedora-packages

I would like to take on maintaining the package, however, I do not have adequate experience in creating and maintaining as such. I have looked at the rpm packaging guidelines, and I can see what to do, but actually doing it is a little bit different. I understand everyone has different methods

Re: Future of fedora-packages

Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:56 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 14:36, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:20 PM Stephen John Smoogen >>> wrote: 2. Packaging of elasticsearch was a mess. At the time we had rules that

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 16:05, Jim Perrin wrote: > > How much heresy is involved in us using Amazon's elasticsearch service > for this, so that we don't have yet-another-thing to maintain? > I was wondering how much data are we looking to shove there, does that data need to be 'protected', and

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:56 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 14:36, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:20 PM Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > 2. Packaging of elasticsearch was a mess. At the time we had rules > > > that all packages needed

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 14:36, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:20 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > 2. Packaging of elasticsearch was a mess. At the time we had rules > > that all packages needed to be packaged in Fedora and follow Fedora > > packaging rules. [This one has

Meeting Agenda for 2019-02-28 Infrastructure meeting

= Preamble = The infrastructure team will be having its weekly meeting tomorrow, 2019-02-27 at 15:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on the freenode network. We have a gobby document at https://infinote.fedoraproject.org/cgit/infinote/tree/fedora-infrastructure-meeting-next which can be edited for the

Re: [ansible] [distgit/pagure] Drop --autoreload from our systemd service file

Hi, Pierre-YvesChibon wrote: > [distgit/pagure] Drop --autoreload from our systemd service file I noticed a few recent commits using this bracket prefix style and I wanted to give a heads-up about how this can cause problems, in case it's not well-known. (If I've mentioned it before, please

Re: cloud retirement

> Hey everyone. > > As you know, we currently have a RHOSP5 ancient cloud. After a bunch of > work last year, we got a RHOSP13 cloud up and mostly working, but it was > a ton of work. After hearing from the Fedora Council and our various > management chains we determined that it wouldn't really be

Re: Future of fedora-packages

How much heresy is involved in us using Amazon's elasticsearch service for this, so that we don't have yet-another-thing to maintain? On 2/27/19 4:19 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 14:39, Clement Verna wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> fedora-packages [0] code base is showing

Re: Future of fedora-packages

I looked at the version of Elasticsearch via sources and spec file, and I know that Elasticsearch is on 6.0 right now. It is true that we do need an expert in elasticsearch in order to move forward on using elasticsearch as an api if agreed on using elasticsearch. I am currently working on

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 1:20 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 2. Packaging of elasticsearch was a mess. At the time we had rules > that all packages needed to be packaged in Fedora and follow Fedora > packaging rules. [This one has been relaxed.] I just want to point out that Elasticsearch has

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:27, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 14:39, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > fedora-packages [0] code base is showing its age. The code base and > > the technology stack (Turbogears2 [1] web framework and the Moksha > > [2] middleware)

Re: External access to the AMQP broker

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 18:27, Aurelien Bompard wrote: > > I'm assuming you're considering the solution where we have a single > broker and we make it publicly accessible (option 1). > > > how easy would it be to turn off the possibility for external > > publisher to flood the broker ? > >

Re: External access to the AMQP broker

I'm assuming you're considering the solution where we have a single broker and we make it publicly accessible (option 1). > how easy would it be to turn off the possibility for external > publisher to flood the broker ? External clients won't publish anything, they'll be read-only (with a few

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Infrastructure

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Infrastructure on 2019-02-28 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Weekly Fedora Infrastructure meeting. See infrastructure list for agenda a day before or view it at

Re: External access to the AMQP broker

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 07:57, Clement Verna wrote: > > > I can say that there are quite a few people out there who look for > > someone uttering "hypothetical DoS" to prove to them one will exist. > > So now that you have done so.. we should assume we will have one and > > plan on how to deal

Re: External access to the AMQP broker

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:17, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 10:57, Aurelien Bompard > > wrote: > > > > > > Hey y'all, > > > > > > Fedora Messaging, the replacement for fedmsg, is using AMQP and thus a > > >

Re: External access to the AMQP broker

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:17, Clement Verna wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 10:57, Aurelien Bompard > wrote: > > > > Hey y'all, > > > > Fedora Messaging, the replacement for fedmsg, is using AMQP and thus a > > message broker. The current clusters we have deployed in staging and > > prod are

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 14:39, Clement Verna wrote: > > Hi all, > > fedora-packages [0] code base is showing its age. The code base and > the technology stack (Turbogears2 [1] web framework and the Moksha > [2] middleware) is currently not ready for Python3 and I am not > planning to do the work

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 10:27, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 26. 02. 19 v 23:42 Ryan Lerch napsal(a): > > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:39, Clement Verna wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> fedora-packages [0] code base is showing its age. The code base and >> the technology stack (Turbogears2 [1] web

External access to the AMQP broker

Hey y'all, Fedora Messaging, the replacement for fedmsg, is using AMQP and thus a message broker. The current clusters we have deployed in staging and prod are only accessible from inside our infrastructure. There are two needs for an externally accessible broker: - the CentOS folks, who are

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:38:30PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > Hi all, > > fedora-packages [0] code base is showing its age. The code base and > the technology stack (Turbogears2 [1] web framework and the Moksha > [2] middleware) is currently not ready for Python3 and I am not > planning to do

Re: Future of fedora-packages

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:43 PM Ryan Lerch wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:39, Clement Verna wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> fedora-packages [0] code base is showing its age. The code base and >> the technology stack (Turbogears2 [1] web framework and the Moksha >> [2] middleware) is currently

Re: Future of fedora-packages

Dne 26. 02. 19 v 23:42 Ryan Lerch napsal(a): > > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 05:39, Clement Verna > wrote: > > Hi all, > > fedora-packages [0] code base is showing its age. The code base and > the technology stack  (Turbogears2 [1] web framework and the