CI-users February 2017

ci-users@lists.centos.org

6 participants
5 discussions

[Infra] - Pre-announced major outage for several services (please read)
by Brian Stinson 27 Feb '17

27 Feb '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > On 27/01/17 15:03, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > > Due to some reorganization at the DC/Cage level, we'll have to > > shutdown/move/reconfigure a big part of our hosted infra for the > > following services : > > - cbs.centos.org (Koji) > > - accounts.centos.org (auth backend) > > - ci.centos.org (jenkins-driven CI environment) > > > > We're working on a plan to minimize the downtime/reconfiguration part, > > but at first sight, due to the hardware move of the racks/recabling > > parts/etc, the announced downtime will be probably ~48h. > > > > What does that mean ? That during this window, nobody will be able to > > build/tests packages, nor be able to triggers automatically CI jobs > > (important). > > > > We don't have the final dates confirmed (yet) but it seems that the > > migration will be scheduled for March 14th. > > > > We'll keep you informed when we'll have confirmation about those dates. > > > > Feel free to answer in this thread, or find us in #centos-devel on freenode. > > > > Just as a (periodic) reminder, and also to confirm now the dates : > starting on March 14th > > > -- > Fabian Arrotin > The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org > gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab > Cross-posting this message from centos-devel. Notice that this outage will affect the entire CI Infrastructure on 14-March. Cheers! - --Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJYpIfuAAoJEIMGvNKzCweMahUQAK0AfIyDnLBVLtjp7uHg+pL1 UspPJ0Nc8ye1A1tArxVCcwj/w1H8B68wUX38zvUkW2Kv4l9KyrD3Qsmh7qGiCXY1 AsYHqFe6iA1baVQUFPKKd8LrKPRY1XuwQrdlbmAKGn7xN+GB0vberun3SpxROFYO ce6Fn8wjfh33yignxZM7Hp8O5c9dhOUnG/Fwznm3HedBdWGOKjKbrVqFNc4XQ5ZV RZxE74xAd4WK3UPGZuvTZ7jNLlicWTFgKus9KKY9sahas8mvBHRe7GZ7dO7Xk40z Nx7S2vOYhfEHcNQ0yHW4DYJ2EXqLEdZ1yIXW6Ksv2sOQ3WEBrlFeliBVfSGH1SOf Pm0W3HERyln7gOPueDap7TjwhAUG9n/vxI2h3V0rH8kABppXRnKEyPN5gHX5yUzX A4nhVN76za0DQ+V3LCwF24w9DPFpn8/btkpcTHuspRb+1TG2joh4rk5bamFViHlE KGZSr4txa5CjwQkGD2VBuRS7mmsVntEDLNplAKPensSMKMc0bG1rBxcaiRIPWuo1 nfTW/ufVj0mgi4MrhmyIvzEsz6N/cVcTWT9OO9bNp2gqKNeL/5CFkcDeyxiqlRPW Uv5V4RjYJ5Ke5kaoNdS74tZ3bSFq3RFV/+bj0VN/4Hs5fraZdSdU4W/pIfG1BJ5R nlhEYuxEqwAuKVL08DMH =VESS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Setting Github Access token not resolving Github API rate limit error
by Budh Gurung 03 Feb '17

03 Feb '17

Hi, A week ago, CI-admin had added our requested github token for 'minishift' [1] to the credential store [2]. However, assuming things will go as expected, we are still facing "Github API rate limit" error in our builds [3]. We tried to debug with adding stdout logs (see below at time in build console log [4]) in our code and found token empty. - *00:00:53.627* * - **00:07:04.759* Also, suggests us the proper way to debug in this type of scenarios with no UI access as we are new to JJB approach. [1] https://github.com/minishift/minishift [2] https://github.com/minishift/minishift-ci-jobs/pull/11 [3] https://ci.centos.org/job/minishift/88/console (same with #86, #87) [4] https://ci.centos.org/job/minishift/83/console (same with #81) Regards, Budh Ram Gurung Software Engineer - Devtools

2 1

CI Maintenance Window 01-Feb-2017 20:00 US-Eastern (02-Feb-2017 01:00 UTC)
by Brian Stinson 02 Feb '17

02 Feb '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Folks, We will be issuing a 1hr maintenance window at 20:00 Eastern Time on 01-Feb-2017 for package/kernel upgrades on the Jenkins Slaves, and to update to the latest Jenkins LTS. If you have not commented on the Ansible thread yet, this is the last chance to ACK/NAK an upgrade to Ansible 2.2 on the slaves: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ci-users/2017-January/000479.html As usual we will start the quiet period 1 hour before the window begins in order to allow for jobs to finish. Cheers! - -- Brian Stinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJYjE8wAAoJEIMGvNKzCweMe+oQAIpDFYR1LaQAitrxmvzBH+Ew D/eiOHJz/9Ver3Bh5HXU9FGNa3qR/r7IkOVpFjneYFXp14WPe8vbcZqORGDT3HO7 2ULjeHIOUZUoINrds48kyF0VjVvtg/Ix2BIn66iCey9I5ndP3Ycs9sdxhtF5Zv97 Geq8UJPjJO8WDYq3vyAFWuA9JT8F+v9f6XZ+0+6joD/lJMAliWLiWDUvZCTkjL7q YUVB+8BSp/92xhnLSXpTkt/5T66tKbUxLBln2o/2GPcmrv7YqUe6hF65vTo4F1u4 g/j+Egq1UFQnFpFq2H7tZ8oSzBc9vUeZ8xwI5W8qUAGXOIVZGUb2sx3LPAhbgTEB xqsqdSRA+YId/ZWkaSnSauEpevUQsLoTSLClegbf7t3xLTV30O+xa68lSkhCzID7 sZAYErvxMIjYMIIJUWcuyfOJmTGfc0xzLycetK4lzdYerX1tBMZZmzPCoxWatYYt RomPqct6oYWh3sCWylwqOws3rwzZpoWknTheHOUwANvtjUmT9HCXc/4bYJqXyyG9 RUcR1ym3XiWey3DS7k3zNQ4EGyU+FfuRo0gSGayec5ccr67NokBTSs9k+wWH7tCq US3s4CdnteCqwjoXruLox0F0p9gsBrGirmeQ0qM5y/M0Jo8bHNIASF2ta58TRlux 25torhV1nnNUHnHLXW6i =nDfw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

Re: [Ci-users] Ansible Update from 1.9.6 -> 2.X
by Laurentiu Pancescu 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

On 01/02/17 17:03, Brian Stinson wrote: > On Feb 01 15:22, Laurentiu Pancescu wrote: >> Since Fedora already makes the effort to provide the current Ansible >> releases in EPEL, it would be a pity not to take advantage of that. > > We're planning to track what's going through CBS, which isn't > necessarily the same lifecycle as EPEL > > The PaaS SIG is releasing: > http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=14071 From a quick look at the changelog, that particular CBS build is missing the security fixes from 2.2.1.0 (CVE-2016-9587, CVE-2016-8647, CVE-2016-9587 and CVE-2016-8647). I understand that we'd probably like to have full control over when a version upgrade takes place (not to break things), but we'd need to backport the security fixes. Or isn't security an issue since cico is an isolated environment? The main reason behind my proposal to adopt whatever Fedora packages was to get security fixes from the security team that handles EPEL and Fedora. For me, it's still unclear how fast are security fixes landing in SIG-provided packages. But that's certainly your decision to make, I'm fine with it either way. :)

2 2

Ansible Update from 1.9.6 -> 2.X
by Brian Stinson 01 Feb '17

01 Feb '17

Hi Folks, We've been shipping Ansible 1.9.x on the slaves for a while now. Do any of you have use-cases to stay pinned to such an old version? We'd like to update at least to the 2.1 branch (2.2 has some templating/variable-quoting gotchas) in the near future. Questions, comments? --Brian

5 7

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

CI-users February 2017