On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 5:05 PM Aoife Moloney wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> Welcome to the CPE team weekly project update mail!
>
>
>
> Background:
>
> The Community Platform Engineering group is the Red Hat team combining
> IT and release engineering from Fedora and CentOS. Our goal is to keep
> core servers and services running and maintained, build releases, and
> other strategic tasks that need more dedicated time than volunteers
> can give.
>
> For better communication, we will be giving weekly reports to the
> CentOS and Fedora communities about the general tasks and work being
> done. Also for better communication between our groups we have
> created #redhat-cpe on Freenode IRC! Please feel free to catch us
> there, a mail has landed on both the CentOS and Fedora devel lists
> with context here.
>
>
> Note:
>
> This document is currently built from individual reports rolled into a
> google document which we edit and copy into a final document. We are
> aware that this causes problems with some email readers, and are
> working on a method to make this less problematic.
>
>
> High Level Project Updates:
>
>
>
>
> Fedora:
>
>
> Rawhide Gating:
> Bodhi was 5.1 released and is deployed in staging
> Robosignatory is broken in staging preventing testing much there
>
>
Speaking of robosignatory, what's the state of affairs for Sigul[0]?
At Flock, I was assured by Patrick that he'd release a new Python
3-compatible Sigul that works with GnuPG 2.1 or higher. We still don't
have that, so it's *still* not possible for people to sign packages
and repos with Koji deployments...
The last time I brought this up (at the top of the year[1]), I
proposed considering switching to obs-signd, since nothing has been
happening with Sigul. At that point, I was assured work was going on
here and also told that obs-signd is not capable of serving our needs.
So... now what?
[0]: https://pagure.io/sigul
[1]:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CGDTZI5M7WOUZVDOWS44MSFMRYH276ND/
>
>
> Application Retirements
>
> Elections
> Elections being moved to Communishift really soon! Stay tuned!
>
> Fedocal
> Still no progress on kanban board last four weeks
> https://teams.fedoraproject.org/project/fedora-calendar/kanban
>
> Jlanda is still hitting permission error in communishift
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8274
> Still working on running local instance
>
I'm confused how this is the first time we're seeing these issues. Do
we not have *any* apps in Communishift using PostgreSQL (or any
database for that matter) besides Fedocal?
> Nuancier
> Benson Muite is now working on OIDC authentication
> A PR will be created on Github to test if we can see the progress
> New PR from sebwoj - Porting to Fedora messaging is under review
>
> Pastebin
> Still on track for December 1 modernpaste shutdown
>
> GDPR and privacy centric conversations with respect to application
> handovers have resulted in…..more conversations needed - shock :)
>
Can we please have fpaste.org and paste.fedoraproject.org still work?
>
>
>
>
> CentOS:
> The team have been testing projects migration from repospanner to
> locally hosted git repositores on git.dev.centos.org and come back
> with a migration script/plan to unblock RCM
>
Does this mean that the whole magical future plan of having multiple
distros' branches in src.fp.o and git.c.o is dead?
> CentOS Stream
> Scoping meetings are still ongoing
>
What does this even mean!?
>
> Misc
>
> Bugzilla sync script has been resolved
> Email inviting to review its change has been sent
>
> New changes to src.fedoraproject.org deployed:
> Ability to set the anitya monitoring status directly in the UI
> Ability to adopt orphan (and not retired) packages directly in the UI
>
Yay!
> New changes to Pagure on the horizon:
> New API endpoint to enable/disable git hooks
> Ability to set dist-git in the default assignee overrides for bugzilla
>
Can somebody please consider looking into supporting per-branch ACLs
in Pagure Dist-Git? It's become a problem that I'm too nervous to hand
out EPEL branches to people because they can do bad things to the
Fedora branches I care about...
Also, question: is it supposed to be possible for people other than
the maintainer to request EPEL branches and force me to have them?
Somehow I wound up getting EPEL 8 branches for buildbot[2][3], and I
definitely did not ask for them. What's crap about this is that now
I'm stuck with Git branches I don't want in a configuration I didn't
ask for, with commits in there I definitely don't like. Thankfully,
there have been no builds, but it's still bad.
[2]: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19857
[3]: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19856
>
> EPEL 8 modularity
> Updates can now be created in bodhi staging!
> We are currently testing pushes/composes
> We are also testing epel8-playground-modules composes
>
Does anyone know how we're
