The notes from the pre-dojo meeting at CERN, yesterday, may be found in the etherpad at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/cern-centos-thursday
Those involved in the various discussion topics are requested to elaborate, where appropriate.
Thanks to everyone who attended this very productive discussion.
--Rich
Also, because it's in an etherpad, and is thus subject to alteration or vandalization, I'll also put a copy below for posterity.
If there are any parts of this which are unclear to those that weren't present, we encourage you to start a new thread per topic for further discussion.
Thanks!
===================================
CentOS Contributors Day, CERN Thursday, October 19th, 2017
https://indico.cern.ch/event/660692/overview
09:00 multiarch CI status
09:30 cross-SIG CI
10:00 workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents
10:30 allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
11:00 Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
11:30 OPEN FLOOR, work/hack session.
12:00 LUNCH
14:00 - 15:00 Datacenter tour
16:30 - 17:30 ATLAS experiment
Topics proposals: - multiarch CI status? (Scheduled) - cross-SIG CI ? (Scheduled) - workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents. +2 (Scheduled) - allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots. +1 (Scheduled) - Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... (Scheduled) - (mrunge) a kind of work session (?) if there is anything to be done/fixed "right now"? - Building embargoed content
Notes:
Introductions
Multiarch CI (Haikel) - no automated ci for all platforms - if you're using CI, please subscribe to ci-user-list - ppc64(le) machines are available, but request is manual right now. - aarch64 boxes are small, community donated. Power-capacity is way bigger - more detail on the multiarch page in the wiki (not able to find it through https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy ) - https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Multiarch - use cico client for interaction wih CI system - cicoclient multiarch support has been merged => https://github.com/CentOS/python-cicoclient/pull/14 - suggestion to use zuul instead of jenkins for managing job queues - AI on alphacc: add template for requesting sync to buildlogs to mention architectures etc...
Cross sig ci (Haikel) - sig start depending on other SIGs, (multiple examples given) - question on how to test pre-released packages - to test against extras, SIG should provide tests to t_functional from CentOS QA. Wiki page is located at https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional. git is located at https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-t_functional. Results are to be found at https://ci.centos.org/ (search for "pretest" for results before package release and for "t_functional" for daily tests) - define a matrix for SIGs depending on each other trigger tests - start email thread on ci-users list, create dependency graph from centos-release-* - CI and CBS meeting on Mondays on #centos-devel - CICO statistics are partially available through CentOS Zabbix instance
Workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents (mrunge) - Historically we do not delete content ever. But we can move it to the archive/vault, and stop distributing it by default - reasons to remove packages from the repository (move to vault.c.o): - newer package in the (base) release - dependency not needed any more from a newer release of your package - end of life for versions (centos-release-gluster with per-version repositories) - need a workflow for deprecating/removing a package - SIGs are for experimentation - it's not for the distro to tell them how to run their process. - single package removal by untagging - also needs update to KB's sync script - whole repository removal by filing a bug,
Allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots - separate user accounts from "bot" accounts for security reasons - [proposal] have an email alias (not list) per sig for the bots, like sig-<bla>@centos.org pointing to the SIG's chair - [proposal] SIG chair must request or approve email alias requests/ ACO account creation sent to CentOS Board chairman
Package Signing - SIG chairs should request feedback/insight into the package signing process --> KB - sometimes, there is a delay in package signing/sync to mirror.centos.org - have keys been generated securely (known bugs in package versions that make less secure keys?)
Sig request for sig specific git sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs. mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system
Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... - pre-CR buildroot for koji? - does any SIG build against c7/i686? No, probably not - For 7.4 building all the Alt-Arches took additional time, thus delaying the release. There is work being done to improve this for future releases - is it possible to spread the load for contributors for building on alt arches?
Other topics
* Building embargoed patches - current practise: build as soon as the embargo is lifted - wait for sign+push to mirror - improvements possible for signing packages faster
* Board requirements/policy around SIG status? - SIG chair missing: SIG may elect a new a chair and notify board - inactive SIG members are disabled after some period. - Define sane defaults in the SIG startup guide as a baseline (Patches welcomed!)
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:54 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
The notes from the pre-dojo meeting at CERN, yesterday, may be found in the etherpad at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/cern-centos-thursday
Those involved in the various discussion topics are requested to elaborate, where appropriate.
Thanks to everyone who attended this very productive discussion.
--Rich
-- Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @rbowen // @rdocommunity // @CentOSProject 859 351 9166 <(859)%20351-9166>
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
Allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
- separate user accounts from "bot" accounts for security reasons
- [proposal] have an email alias (not list) per sig for the bots, like
sig-<bla>@centos.org pointing to the SIG's chair
- [proposal] SIG chair must request or approve email alias requests/ ACO
account creation sent to CentOS Board chairman
What was the result of this discussion?
Specifically I'm curious in the context of the "ceph" service account at https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=13884
- Ken
On 21/10/17 12:27, Rich Bowen wrote:
Also, because it's in an etherpad, and is thus subject to alteration or vandalization, I'll also put a copy below for posterity.
If there are any parts of this which are unclear to those that weren't present, we encourage you to start a new thread per topic for further discussion.
Thanks!
===================================
CentOS Contributors Day, CERN Thursday, October 19th, 2017
https://indico.cern.ch/event/660692/overview
09:00 multiarch CI status
09:30 cross-SIG CI
10:00 workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents
10:30 allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
11:00 Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
11:30 OPEN FLOOR, work/hack session.
12:00 LUNCH
14:00 - 15:00 Datacenter tour
16:30 - 17:30 ATLAS experiment
Topics proposals: - multiarch CI status? (Scheduled) - cross-SIG CI ? (Scheduled) - workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents. +2 (Scheduled) - allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots. +1 (Scheduled) - Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... (Scheduled) - (mrunge) a kind of work session (?) if there is anything to be done/fixed "right now"? - Building embargoed content Notes: Introductions
Multiarch CI (Haikel)
- no automated ci for all platforms
- if you're using CI, please subscribe to ci-user-list
- ppc64(le) machines are available, but request is manual right now.
- aarch64 boxes are small, community donated. Power-capacity is way bigger
- more detail on the multiarch page in the wiki (not able to find it
through https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy )
- https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Multiarch
- use cico client for interaction wih CI system
- cicoclient multiarch support has been merged =>
https://github.com/CentOS/python-cicoclient/pull/14
- suggestion to use zuul instead of jenkins for managing job queues
- AI on alphacc: add template for requesting sync to buildlogs to
mention architectures etc...
Cross sig ci (Haikel)
- sig start depending on other SIGs, (multiple examples given)
- question on how to test pre-released packages
- to test against extras, SIG should provide tests to t_functional from
CentOS QA. Wiki page is located at https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional. git is located at https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-t_functional. Results are to be found at https://ci.centos.org/ (search for "pretest" for results before package release and for "t_functional" for daily tests)
- define a matrix for SIGs depending on each other trigger tests - start
email thread on ci-users list, create dependency graph from centos-release-*
- CI and CBS meeting on Mondays on #centos-devel
- CICO statistics are partially available through CentOS Zabbix instance
Workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents (mrunge)
- Historically we do not delete content ever. But we can move it to the
archive/vault, and stop distributing it by default
- reasons to remove packages from the repository (move to vault.c.o):
- newer package in the (base) release - dependency not needed any more from a newer release of your package - end of life for versions (centos-release-gluster with per-version repositories)
- need a workflow for deprecating/removing a package
- SIGs are for experimentation - it's not for the distro to tell them
how to run their process.
- single package removal by untagging - also needs update to KB's sync
script
- whole repository removal by filing a bug,
Allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots - separate user accounts from "bot" accounts for security reasons - [proposal] have an email alias (not list) per sig for the bots, like sig-<bla>@centos.org http://centos.org pointing to the SIG's chair - [proposal] SIG chair must request or approve email alias requests/ ACO account creation sent to CentOS Board chairman
Package Signing
- SIG chairs should request feedback/insight into the package signing
process --> KB
- sometimes, there is a delay in package signing/sync to
mirror.centos.org http://mirror.centos.org
- have keys been generated securely (known bugs in package versions that
make less secure keys?)
Sig request for sig specific git sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org http://accounts.centos.org Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs. mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system
Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
- pre-CR buildroot for koji?
- does any SIG build against c7/i686? No, probably not
- For 7.4 building all the Alt-Arches took additional time, thus
delaying the release. There is work being done to improve this for future releases
- is it possible to spread the load for contributors for building on alt
arches?
Other topics
- Building embargoed patches
- current practise: build as soon as the embargo is lifted - wait for
sign+push to mirror
- improvements possible for signing packages faster
- Board requirements/policy around SIG status?
- SIG chair missing: SIG may elect a new a chair and notify board - inactive SIG members are disabled after some period. - Define sane defaults in the SIG startup guide as a baseline (Patches welcomed!)
Thanks Rich for having forwarded the meeting minutes here. My proposal now would be to split each topic into separate thread for better/easier tracking and readability so I'll start each time a new thread (for the things I'm involved with)
2017-10-21 12:27 GMT+02:00 Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com:
Also, because it's in an etherpad, and is thus subject to alteration or vandalization, I'll also put a copy below for posterity.
If there are any parts of this which are unclear to those that weren't present, we encourage you to start a new thread per topic for further discussion.
Thanks!
===================================
CentOS Contributors Day, CERN Thursday, October 19th, 2017
https://indico.cern.ch/event/660692/overview
09:00 multiarch CI status
09:30 cross-SIG CI
10:00 workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents
10:30 allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
11:00 Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
11:30 OPEN FLOOR, work/hack session.
12:00 LUNCH
14:00 - 15:00 Datacenter tour
16:30 - 17:30 ATLAS experiment
Topics proposals: - multiarch CI status? (Scheduled) - cross-SIG CI ? (Scheduled) - workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents. +2 (Scheduled) - allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots. +1 (Scheduled) - Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... (Scheduled) - (mrunge) a kind of work session (?) if there is anything to be done/fixed "right now"?
- Building embargoed content
Notes:
Introductions
Multiarch CI (Haikel)
- no automated ci for all platforms
- if you're using CI, please subscribe to ci-user-list
- ppc64(le) machines are available, but request is manual right now.
- aarch64 boxes are small, community donated. Power-capacity is way bigger
- more detail on the multiarch page in the wiki (not able to find it
through https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy )
- https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Multiarch
- use cico client for interaction wih CI system
- cicoclient multiarch support has been merged =>
https://github.com/CentOS/python-cicoclient/pull/14
- suggestion to use zuul instead of jenkins for managing job queues
- AI on alphacc: add template for requesting sync to buildlogs to mention
architectures etc...
Cross sig ci (Haikel)
- sig start depending on other SIGs, (multiple examples given)
- question on how to test pre-released packages
- to test against extras, SIG should provide tests to t_functional from
CentOS QA. Wiki page is located at https://wiki.centos.org/ QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional. git is located at https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-t_functional. Results are to be found at https://ci.centos.org/ (search for "pretest" for results before package release and for "t_functional" for daily tests)
- define a matrix for SIGs depending on each other trigger tests - start
email thread on ci-users list, create dependency graph from centos-release-*
- CI and CBS meeting on Mondays on #centos-devel
- CICO statistics are partially available through CentOS Zabbix instance
Workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents (mrunge)
- Historically we do not delete content ever. But we can move it to the
archive/vault, and stop distributing it by default
- reasons to remove packages from the repository (move to vault.c.o):
- newer package in the (base) release
- dependency not needed any more from a newer release of your package
- end of life for versions (centos-release-gluster with per-version
repositories)
- need a workflow for deprecating/removing a package
- SIGs are for experimentation - it's not for the distro to tell them how
to run their process.
- single package removal by untagging - also needs update to KB's sync
script
- whole repository removal by filing a bug,
Allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
- separate user accounts from "bot" accounts for security reasons
- [proposal] have an email alias (not list) per sig for the bots, like
sig-<bla>@centos.org pointing to the SIG's chair
- [proposal] SIG chair must request or approve email alias requests/ ACO
account creation sent to CentOS Board chairman
Package Signing
- SIG chairs should request feedback/insight into the package signing
process --> KB
- sometimes, there is a delay in package signing/sync to mirror.centos.org
- have keys been generated securely (known bugs in package versions that
make less secure keys?)
Sig request for sig specific git sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs. mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system
Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
- pre-CR buildroot for koji?
- does any SIG build against c7/i686? No, probably not
- For 7.4 building all the Alt-Arches took additional time, thus delaying
the release. There is work being done to improve this for future releases
- is it possible to spread the load for contributors for building on alt
arches?
Other topics
- Building embargoed patches
- current practise: build as soon as the embargo is lifted - wait for
sign+push to mirror
- improvements possible for signing packages faster
Any improvement on this topic since October?
- Board requirements/policy around SIG status?
- SIG chair missing: SIG may elect a new a chair and notify board
- inactive SIG members are disabled after some period.
- Define sane defaults in the SIG startup guide as a baseline (Patches
welcomed!)
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:54 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
The notes from the pre-dojo meeting at CERN, yesterday, may be found in the etherpad at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/cern-centos- thursday
Those involved in the various discussion topics are requested to elaborate, where appropriate.
Thanks to everyone who attended this very productive discussion.
--Rich
-- Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @rbowen // @rdocommunity // @CentOSProject 859 351 9166 <(859)%20351-9166>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @rbowen // @rdocommunity // @CentOSProject 859 351 9166
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
2018-05-18 11:51 GMT+02:00 Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo@redhat.com:
2017-10-21 12:27 GMT+02:00 Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com:
Also, because it's in an etherpad, and is thus subject to alteration or vandalization, I'll also put a copy below for posterity.
If there are any parts of this which are unclear to those that weren't present, we encourage you to start a new thread per topic for further discussion.
Thanks!
===================================
CentOS Contributors Day, CERN Thursday, October 19th, 2017
https://indico.cern.ch/event/660692/overview
09:00 multiarch CI status
09:30 cross-SIG CI
10:00 workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents
10:30 allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
11:00 Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
11:30 OPEN FLOOR, work/hack session.
12:00 LUNCH
14:00 - 15:00 Datacenter tour
16:30 - 17:30 ATLAS experiment
Topics proposals: - multiarch CI status? (Scheduled) - cross-SIG CI ? (Scheduled) - workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents. +2 (Scheduled) - allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots. +1 (Scheduled) - Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... (Scheduled) - (mrunge) a kind of work session (?) if there is anything to be done/fixed "right now"?
- Building embargoed content
Notes:
Introductions
Multiarch CI (Haikel)
- no automated ci for all platforms
- if you're using CI, please subscribe to ci-user-list
- ppc64(le) machines are available, but request is manual right now.
- aarch64 boxes are small, community donated. Power-capacity is way bigger
- more detail on the multiarch page in the wiki (not able to find it
through https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy )
- https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Multiarch
- use cico client for interaction wih CI system
- cicoclient multiarch support has been merged =>
https://github.com/CentOS/python-cicoclient/pull/14
- suggestion to use zuul instead of jenkins for managing job queues
- AI on alphacc: add template for requesting sync to buildlogs to mention
architectures etc...
Cross sig ci (Haikel)
- sig start depending on other SIGs, (multiple examples given)
- question on how to test pre-released packages
- to test against extras, SIG should provide tests to t_functional from
CentOS QA. Wiki page is located at https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki /AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional. git is located at https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-t_functional. Results are to be found at https://ci.centos.org/ (search for "pretest" for results before package release and for "t_functional" for daily tests)
- define a matrix for SIGs depending on each other trigger tests - start
email thread on ci-users list, create dependency graph from centos-release-*
- CI and CBS meeting on Mondays on #centos-devel
- CICO statistics are partially available through CentOS Zabbix instance
Workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents (mrunge)
- Historically we do not delete content ever. But we can move it to the
archive/vault, and stop distributing it by default
- reasons to remove packages from the repository (move to vault.c.o):
- newer package in the (base) release
- dependency not needed any more from a newer release of your package
- end of life for versions (centos-release-gluster with per-version
repositories)
- need a workflow for deprecating/removing a package
- SIGs are for experimentation - it's not for the distro to tell them how
to run their process.
- single package removal by untagging - also needs update to KB's sync
script
- whole repository removal by filing a bug,
Allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots
- separate user accounts from "bot" accounts for security reasons
- [proposal] have an email alias (not list) per sig for the bots, like
sig-<bla>@centos.org pointing to the SIG's chair
- [proposal] SIG chair must request or approve email alias requests/ ACO
account creation sent to CentOS Board chairman
Package Signing
- SIG chairs should request feedback/insight into the package signing
process --> KB
- sometimes, there is a delay in package signing/sync to
mirror.centos.org
- have keys been generated securely (known bugs in package versions that
make less secure keys?)
Sig request for sig specific git sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs. mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system
Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc...
- pre-CR buildroot for koji?
- does any SIG build against c7/i686? No, probably not
- For 7.4 building all the Alt-Arches took additional time, thus delaying
the release. There is work being done to improve this for future releases
- is it possible to spread the load for contributors for building on alt
arches?
Other topics
- Building embargoed patches
- current practise: build as soon as the embargo is lifted - wait for
sign+push to mirror
- improvements possible for signing packages faster
Any improvement on this topic since October?
Should I take lack of answer like a no?
- Board requirements/policy around SIG status?
- SIG chair missing: SIG may elect a new a chair and notify board
- inactive SIG members are disabled after some period.
- Define sane defaults in the SIG startup guide as a baseline (Patches
welcomed!)
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:54 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
The notes from the pre-dojo meeting at CERN, yesterday, may be found in the etherpad at https://public.etherpad-moz illa.org/p/cern-centos-thursday
Those involved in the various discussion topics are requested to elaborate, where appropriate.
Thanks to everyone who attended this very productive discussion.
--Rich
-- Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @rbowen // @rdocommunity // @CentOSProject 859 351 9166 <(859)%20351-9166>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @rbowen // @rdocommunity // @CentOSProject 859 351 9166
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA
ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D
Red Hat EMEA https://www.redhat.com/
sbonazzo@redhat.com https://red.ht/sig https://redhat.com/summit
On 23/05/18 08:07, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
2018-05-18 11:51 GMT+02:00 Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com mailto:sbonazzo@redhat.com>:
2017-10-21 12:27 GMT+02:00 Rich Bowen <rbowen@redhat.com <mailto:rbowen@redhat.com>>: Also, because it's in an etherpad, and is thus subject to alteration or vandalization, I'll also put a copy below for posterity. If there are any parts of this which are unclear to those that weren't present, we encourage you to start a new thread per topic for further discussion. Thanks! =================================== CentOS Contributors Day, CERN Thursday, October 19th, 2017 https://indico.cern.ch/event/660692/overview <https://indico.cern.ch/event/660692/overview> 09:00 multiarch CI status 09:30 cross-SIG CI 10:00 workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents 10:30 allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots 11:00 Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... 11:30 OPEN FLOOR, work/hack session. 12:00 LUNCH 14:00 - 15:00 Datacenter tour 16:30 - 17:30 ATLAS experiment Topics proposals: - multiarch CI status? (Scheduled) - cross-SIG CI ? (Scheduled) - workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents. +2 (Scheduled) - allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots. +1 (Scheduled) - Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... (Scheduled) - (mrunge) a kind of work session (?) if there is anything to be done/fixed "right now"? - Building embargoed content Notes: Introductions Multiarch CI (Haikel) - no automated ci for all platforms - if you're using CI, please subscribe to ci-user-list - ppc64(le) machines are available, but request is manual right now. - aarch64 boxes are small, community donated. Power-capacity is way bigger - more detail on the multiarch page in the wiki (not able to find it through https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy <https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Duffy> ) - https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Multiarch <https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/CI/Multiarch> - use cico client for interaction wih CI system - cicoclient multiarch support has been merged => https://github.com/CentOS/python-cicoclient/pull/14 <https://github.com/CentOS/python-cicoclient/pull/14> - suggestion to use zuul instead of jenkins for managing job queues - AI on alphacc: add template for requesting sync to buildlogs to mention architectures etc... Cross sig ci (Haikel) - sig start depending on other SIGs, (multiple examples given) - question on how to test pre-released packages - to test against extras, SIG should provide tests to t_functional from CentOS QA. Wiki page is located at https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional <https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional>. git is located at https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-t_functional <https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-t_functional>. Results are to be found at https://ci.centos.org/ (search for "pretest" for results before package release and for "t_functional" for daily tests) - define a matrix for SIGs depending on each other trigger tests - start email thread on ci-users list, create dependency graph from centos-release-* - CI and CBS meeting on Mondays on #centos-devel - CICO statistics are partially available through CentOS Zabbix instance Workflow/process for deprecating SIG contents (mrunge) - Historically we do not delete content ever. But we can move it to the archive/vault, and stop distributing it by default - reasons to remove packages from the repository (move to vault.c.o): - newer package in the (base) release - dependency not needed any more from a newer release of your package - end of life for versions (centos-release-gluster with per-version repositories) - need a workflow for deprecating/removing a package - SIGs are for experimentation - it's not for the distro to tell them how to run their process. - single package removal by untagging - also needs update to KB's sync script - whole repository removal by filing a bug, Allow SIGs to have separate accounts for build bots - separate user accounts from "bot" accounts for security reasons - [proposal] have an email alias (not list) per sig for the bots, like sig-<bla>@centos.org <http://centos.org> pointing to the SIG's chair - [proposal] SIG chair must request or approve email alias requests/ ACO account creation sent to CentOS Board chairman Package Signing - SIG chairs should request feedback/insight into the package signing process --> KB - sometimes, there is a delay in package signing/sync to mirror.centos.org <http://mirror.centos.org> - have keys been generated securely (known bugs in package versions that make less secure keys?) Sig request for sig specific git sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org <http://accounts.centos.org> Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs. mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system Manage CBS multiarch at minor release ; quicker access to packages than distribution does, delegate more (i686?), etc... - pre-CR buildroot for koji? - does any SIG build against c7/i686? No, probably not - For 7.4 building all the Alt-Arches took additional time, thus delaying the release. There is work being done to improve this for future releases - is it possible to spread the load for contributors for building on alt arches? Other topics * Building embargoed patches - current practise: build as soon as the embargo is lifted - wait for sign+push to mirror - improvements possible for signing packages faster Any improvement on this topic since October?
Should I take lack of answer like a no?
I sent mails for all those topics and was hoping some momentum/reactions on those, but there was none, unfortunately, so yes, I consider that "no" seems the current answer for your question
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:58:07AM +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Sig request for sig specific git sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org <http://accounts.centos.org> Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs. mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system Any improvement on this topic since October?
Should I take lack of answer like a no?
I sent mails for all those topics and was hoping some momentum/reactions on those, but there was none, unfortunately, so yes, I consider that "no" seems the current answer for your question
Fabian set up a test environment for the sig specig git, I tested and it worked very well.
Somehow we didn't came up with a follow-up action on this.