If you have been involved in any of our SIGs, now or in the past - or, indeed, if you'd like to be in the future - I'd like to hear from you.
I was going to do a formal survey, but I find I need a baseline - I don't even know what questions to ask.
I'd like to hear what you love and what you hate about the SIG process. What you would like to see done differently. What features/services you'd like to see added, and which we could drop.
Feel free to respond here, but if there are things you'd like to say that you don't feel comfortable saying publicly, you can send them directly to me, and I will anonymize before sharing the results.
This is certainly not a promise that we can or will implement any of your requests, but as we work through more clearly documenting our governance, we want, along the way, to fix whatever's broken. And for that, we need to hear from you.
On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 15:18 -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
If you have been involved in any of our SIGs, now or in the past - or, indeed, if you'd like to be in the future - I'd like to hear from you.
I was going to do a formal survey, but I find I need a baseline - I don't even know what questions to ask.
I'd like to hear what you love and what you hate about the SIG process. What you would like to see done differently. What features/services you'd like to see added, and which we could drop.
The main issues I've hit so far are things around the developer experience on git.centos.org and CBS. Notably: - the lack of a working PR workflow: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/228 - the way the lookaside works: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/259 - hard to discover clone URLs: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/245 - support for modularity in CBS: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/294
None of these are showstoppers, but they are definitely roadblocks. The PR workflow in particular is problematic -- right now we rely on SIG members pushing directly to the repos, which makes code review difficult. It's also a blocker for external contribution (as, though one can technically put up a PR, there is no way to actually merge it). I would love to have something closer to the workflow in Fedora here, specifically: - allow SIG members to review and merge PRs onto their branch - kick off scratch builds on PRs to get signal
The other thing I would love is a way for SIGs to publish structured documentation on docs.centos.org, akin to the "quick docs" model that Fedora uses.
Cheers Davide
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:19 PM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
If you have been involved in any of our SIGs, now or in the past - or, indeed, if you'd like to be in the future - I'd like to hear from you.
I was going to do a formal survey, but I find I need a baseline - I don't even know what questions to ask.
I'd like to hear what you love and what you hate about the SIG process. What you would like to see done differently. What features/services you'd like to see added, and which we could drop.
What could be improved:
- Missing PR workflow as Davide explained (see https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/4533, two years old). - Missing -devel subpackages (I know this has been discussed a lot and fix is in progress). - I'd like to build, tag and push release rpms (as centos-release-openstack). In CentOS7 we could build and tag by ourselves (although it needed infra action to push). In CentOS8 we need to rely in centos infra to build and publish them in extras repos.
What I like:
- Specially the automation of the tag -> sign -> push workflow has been a great improvement for SIGs (at least for CloudSIG)
Feel free to respond here, but if there are things you'd like to say that you don't feel comfortable saying publicly, you can send them directly to me, and I will anonymize before sharing the results.
This is certainly not a promise that we can or will implement any of your requests, but as we work through more clearly documenting our governance, we want, along the way, to fix whatever's broken. And for that, we need to hear from you.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:15:20PM +0000, Davide Cavalca via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 15:18 -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
If you have been involved in any of our SIGs, now or in the past - or, indeed, if you'd like to be in the future - I'd like to hear from you.
I was going to do a formal survey, but I find I need a baseline - I don't even know what questions to ask.
I'd like to hear what you love and what you hate about the SIG process. What you would like to see done differently. What features/services you'd like to see added, and which we could drop.
The main issues I've hit so far are things around the developer experience on git.centos.org and CBS. Notably:
- the lack of a working PR workflow:
https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/228
- hard to discover clone URLs: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/245
Does anyone know if these two will be fixed by the move to gitlab?
Pierre
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:50 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@pingoured.fr wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:15:20PM +0000, Davide Cavalca via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 15:18 -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
If you have been involved in any of our SIGs, now or in the past - or, indeed, if you'd like to be in the future - I'd like to hear from you.
I was going to do a formal survey, but I find I need a baseline - I don't even know what questions to ask.
I'd like to hear what you love and what you hate about the SIG process. What you would like to see done differently. What features/services you'd like to see added, and which we could drop.
The main issues I've hit so far are things around the developer experience on git.centos.org and CBS. Notably:
- the lack of a working PR workflow:
https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/228
- hard to discover clone URLs: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/245
Does anyone know if these two will be fixed by the move to gitlab?
No to the first, yes to the second. Though I'm pretty sure both of these would be fixed with the collaborators feature in newer versions of Pagure, wouldn't it?
On 12/05/2021 10:40, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote: <snip>
- I'd like to build, tag and push release rpms (as
centos-release-openstack). In CentOS7 we could build and tag by ourselves (although it needed infra action to push). In CentOS8 we need to rely in centos infra to build and publish them in extras repos.
Hi Alfredo,
As already explained in the past, centos-release-* pkgs were always built on distro builders, to then be signed by distro keys, and that happens *outside* of the cbs.centos.org environment, so I don't see a way to solve this for now. (technically I mean, as there are constraints on where the signing infra is located for distro, vs how it's happening for SIGs)
And also : while you were submitting a build for centos 7, it was *never* used as Johnny was rebuilding it from scratch in the distro builders, so same as for CentOS 8/8-stream in fact ;-)
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 3:54 PM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
On 12/05/2021 10:40, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote:
<snip> > - I'd like to build, tag and push release rpms (as > centos-release-openstack). In CentOS7 we could build and tag by > ourselves (although it needed infra action to push). In CentOS8 we need > to rely in centos infra to build and publish them in extras repos. >
Hi Alfredo,
As already explained in the past, centos-release-* pkgs were always built on distro builders, to then be signed by distro keys, and that happens *outside* of the cbs.centos.org environment, so I don't see a way to solve this for now. (technically I mean, as there are constraints on where the signing infra is located for distro, vs how it's happening for SIGs)
And also : while you were submitting a build for centos 7, it was *never* used as Johnny was rebuilding it from scratch in the distro builders, so same as for CentOS 8/8-stream in fact ;-)
ouch, I had no idea Johnny was rebuilding them in C7 TBH...
Anyway, Rich asked about pains, I replied with my pains... :-)
-- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-
Alfredo Moralejo Alonso -
Davide Cavalca -
Fabian Arrotin -
Neal Gompa -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Rich Bowen