releng/tickets
15
3
Fork 2
Code Issues 91 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Migration of fedora-kiwi-descriptions to forge.fedoraproject.org #13221

New issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-10 17:43:03 +00:00 by patrikp · 26 comments
patrikp commented 2026-02-10 17:43:03 +00:00
Member
Copy link

This is needed as part of migrating all infra & releng repositories to the new forge. [1][2]

[1] infra/tickets#12737
[2] https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/

This is needed as part of migrating all infra & releng repositories to the new forge. [1][2] [1] infra/tickets#12737 [2] https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/
ngompa commented 2026-02-10 17:46:05 +00:00
Member
Copy link

We can't migrate it as long as there is no acceptable CI option on the Fedora Forge that gives VM-based CI.

We can't migrate it as long as there is no acceptable CI option on the Fedora Forge that gives VM-based CI.
lecris commented 2026-02-11 17:34:29 +00:00
Copy link

Hi, CI here :D. We can try to use sclorg/testing-farm-as-github-action? @ngompa do you have an open ticket for what to do with the CI or bikeshed here?

Hi, CI here :D. We can try to use [sclorg/testing-farm-as-github-action](https://github.com/sclorg/testing-farm-as-github-action)? @ngompa do you have an open ticket for what to do with the CI or bikeshed here?
ngompa commented 2026-02-11 17:34:53 +00:00
Member
Copy link

I have no idea where to file a thing about this.

I have no idea where to file a thing about this.
lecris commented 2026-02-11 17:37:35 +00:00
Copy link

Here or https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/issues or https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/tickets. But what is the status of the testing-farm integration on this? Does it work or is it still not covering enough?

Here or https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/issues or https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/tickets. But what is the status of the testing-farm integration on this? Does it work or is it still not covering enough?
ngompa commented 2026-02-11 17:45:13 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Our tmt usage is a bit goofy but works quite well. But I've been told that it'll completely break once we move to forgejo.

Our tmt usage is a bit goofy but works quite well. But I've been told that it'll completely break once we move to forgejo.
lecris commented 2026-02-11 17:56:45 +00:00
Copy link

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

Our tmt usage is a bit goofy but works quite well. But I've been told that it'll completely break once we move to forgejo.

It shouldn't. We haven't nailed down the details of what to use to orchestrate the CI (forgejo actions or packit), but other than that everything else should work out-of-the-box. We can probably do some testing on how forgejo actions + https://github.com/sclorg/testing-farm-as-github-action works and give you some tips based on that?

@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-392244: > Our tmt usage is a bit goofy but works quite well. But I've been told that it'll completely break once we move to forgejo. It shouldn't. We haven't nailed down the details of what to use to orchestrate the CI (forgejo actions or packit), but other than that everything else should work out-of-the-box. We can probably do some testing on how forgejo actions + https://github.com/sclorg/testing-farm-as-github-action works and give you some tips based on that?
patrikp added this to the Backlog project 2026-02-22 17:05:45 +00:00
lecris commented 2026-04-01 09:39:42 +00:00
Copy link

@ngompa the Zuul CI is being decommissioned for these ones. I added a Forgejo actions compatible way for running the tmt tests: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/testing-farm. Just let me know how I can help

@ngompa the Zuul CI is being decommissioned for these ones. I added a Forgejo actions compatible way for running the tmt tests: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/testing-farm. Just let me know how I can help
lecris commented 2026-04-30 12:25:08 +00:00
Copy link

@ngompa @patrikp any movement on this? Anything that Fedora-CI can help with?

@ngompa @patrikp any movement on this? Anything that Fedora-CI can help with?
ngompa commented 2026-04-30 13:08:23 +00:00
Member
Copy link

We need something that works on pull requests. That action doesn't work on pull requests.

We need something that works on pull requests. That action doesn't work on pull requests.
lecris commented 2026-04-30 15:10:22 +00:00
Copy link

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

We need something that works on pull requests. That action doesn't work on pull requests.

It does, I had it run in the PR on the same project to double-check it https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/testing-farm/actions/runs/2/jobs/0/attempt/1. It needs a secrets setup + enabling foregejo action for the org of course, but let me know what issues you encounter

@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-677354: > We need something that works on pull requests. That action doesn't work on pull requests. It does, I had it run in the PR on the same project to double-check it https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/testing-farm/actions/runs/2/jobs/0/attempt/1. It needs a secrets setup + enabling foregejo action for the org of course, but let me know what issues you encounter
lecris commented 2026-05-06 09:01:15 +00:00
Copy link

Ah, maybe it is related to forge/forge#557. I did not try it on a live one. I think I have found the need workaround, will update this as I experiment

Ah, maybe it is related to https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/557. I did not try it on a live one. I think I have found the need workaround, will update this as I experiment
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-01 13:20:03 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

@ngompa, what do you think? I think we should move now? Anyway, CI is not working in pagure anymore, should not be a bigger blocker to not migrate?

@ngompa, what do you think? I think we should move now? Anyway, CI is not working in pagure anymore, should not be a bigger blocker to not migrate?
ngompa commented 2026-06-01 13:21:49 +00:00
Member
Copy link

The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense.

The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense.
lecris commented 2026-06-01 13:43:49 +00:00
Copy link

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense.

Would appreciate a ping or a link to know what to look at

  • latest one I canceled it manually
  • first attempt has only 1 failure reporting that there is a missing plan /tmt/plans/vagrant/base/build-virtualbox

I was not around when the tests were created, so I would have to catch up with what is being done there, and what are the requirements. I do not want to embark on such a journey alone without communication with the maintainers. If you have any issues by all means bring them forward to me so that I can work on them and unblock you, otherwise I do not have mind-reading technology to figure out what is/would be making you unhappy.

The purpose of the sample run is just to show that:

  • you can send testing-farm jobs via the forgejo actions, which is the only thing that the zuul layer did
  • it gives you a full VM with whatever hardware restrictions you requested
@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-792379: > The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense. Would appreciate a ping or a link to know what to look at - [latest one](https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/_fedora-kiwi-descriptions/actions/runs/2/jobs/0/attempt/1) I canceled it manually - [first attempt](https://forge.fedoraproject.org/ci/_fedora-kiwi-descriptions/actions/runs/1/jobs/0/attempt/1) has only 1 failure reporting that there is a missing plan `/tmt/plans/vagrant/base/build-virtualbox` I was not around when the tests were created, so I would have to catch up with what is being done there, and what are the requirements. I do not want to embark on such a journey alone without communication with the maintainers. If you have any issues by all means bring them forward to me so that I can work on them and unblock you, otherwise I do not have mind-reading technology to figure out what is/would be making you unhappy. The purpose of the sample run is just to show that: - you can send testing-farm jobs via the forgejo actions, which is the only thing that the zuul layer did - it gives you a full VM with whatever hardware restrictions you requested
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-10 05:43:54 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

@ngompa, with Pagure decommissioning motto at/before flock might affect this repository, wdyt? We migrate and then look at lecris comment for CI thingy?

@ngompa, with Pagure decommissioning motto at/before flock might affect this repository, wdyt? We migrate and then look at lecris comment for CI thingy?
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-10 05:59:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/decommissioning-of-pagure-io-anticipated-by-flock-2026/181997/

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/decommissioning-of-pagure-io-anticipated-by-flock-2026/181997/
humaton commented 2026-06-10 12:27:39 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense.

Hey, @ngompa given the answer provided by @lecris, is there anything holding this migration back?

@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-792379: > The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense. Hey, @ngompa given the answer provided by @lecris, is there anything holding this migration back?
ngompa commented 2026-06-21 11:00:57 +00:00
Member
Copy link

@humaton wrote in #13221 (comment):

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense.

Hey, @ngompa given the answer provided by @lecris, is there anything holding this migration back?

The Makefile needs to be updated to support regenerating the workflow file based on tmt jobs defined, like we have for the zuul yaml file.

releng/kiwi-descriptions#286

@humaton wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-821245: > @ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment): > > > The "sample" CI from @lecris fails for over half the images, and it shouldn't be failing at all. And the failures don't make sense. > > Hey, @ngompa given the answer provided by @lecris, is there anything holding this migration back? The Makefile needs to be updated to support regenerating the workflow file based on tmt jobs defined, like we have for the zuul yaml file. https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/kiwi-descriptions/pulls/286
ngompa commented 2026-06-21 11:02:06 +00:00
Member
Copy link

In the meantime, the repo has been moved, and pungi-fedora PRs for all active branches have been submitted to update the references.

In the meantime, the repo has been moved, and pungi-fedora PRs for all active branches have been submitted to update the references.
ngompa commented 2026-06-21 11:04:23 +00:00
Member
Copy link

The CI doesn't run in the new repo at all either.

The CI doesn't run in the new repo at all either.
lecris commented 2026-06-21 11:27:19 +00:00
Copy link

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The CI doesn't run in the new repo at all either.

Shall I open the request for runners for releng? https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/new?template=.forgejo%2fissue_template%2fnew_runner.yml

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The Makefile needs to be updated to support regenerating the workflow file based on tmt jobs defined, like we have for the zuul yaml file.

Sure, do you need help for it? My makefile skills are terrible, but probably I can reverse-engineer the current one.

@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-825613: > The CI doesn't run in the new repo at all either. Shall I open the request for runners for releng? https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/new?template=.forgejo%2fissue_template%2fnew_runner.yml @ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-825609: > The Makefile needs to be updated to support regenerating the workflow file based on tmt jobs defined, like we have for the zuul yaml file. Sure, do you need help for it? My makefile skills are terrible, but probably I can reverse-engineer the current one.
ngompa commented 2026-06-21 13:25:52 +00:00
Member
Copy link

@lecris wrote in #13221 (comment):

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The CI doesn't run in the new repo at all either.

Shall I open the request for runners for releng? https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/new?template=.forgejo%2fissue_template%2fnew_runner.yml

Yes, please.

@ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment):

The Makefile needs to be updated to support regenerating the workflow file based on tmt jobs defined, like we have for the zuul yaml file.

Sure, do you need help for it? My makefile skills are terrible, but probably I can reverse-engineer the current one.

I'll give it a shot and see how I do.

@lecris wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13221#issuecomment-825622: > @ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment): > > > The CI doesn't run in the new repo at all either. > > Shall I open the request for runners for releng? https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/new?template=.forgejo%2fissue_template%2fnew_runner.yml Yes, please. > @ngompa wrote in #13221 (comment): > > > The Makefile needs to be updated to support regenerating the workflow file based on tmt jobs defined, like we have for the zuul yaml file. > > Sure, do you need help for it? My makefile skills are terrible, but probably I can reverse-engineer the current one. I'll give it a shot and see how I do.
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-29 11:47:23 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Hello what's the status for the migration here?

Hello what's the status for the migration here?
kevin commented 2026-06-29 18:20:22 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

It's all migrated, but CI is still being worked on.

IMHO, we could just close this, but if folks want to keep it open to track ci work, thats fine...

It's all migrated, but CI is still being worked on. IMHO, we could just close this, but if folks want to keep it open to track ci work, thats fine...
lenkaseg commented 2026-07-07 09:19:46 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

CI is there! forge/forge#625

CI is there! https://forge.fedoraproject.org/forge/forge/issues/625
🎉 1
jnsamyak commented 2026-07-10 06:15:20 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Okay, with CI implemented as well, we should just close this one. In case there are any ambiguities we can always open a new ticket for that.

Okay, with CI implemented as well, we should just close this one. In case there are any ambiguities we can always open a new ticket for that.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
main
modular-tags-at-branchtime
product-release
createrepoc
bz-epel
branch-eol-sop
multiline-sop
weird-loop
container-branching
unretire
blocking-for-f27
json-json-json
orphan-management
find-failures-owners
cvsadmin
twoweek-stable
rawhide-stable
Labels
Clear labels   
after freeze

   
automation

   
backlog
Tasks that will take longer then ~4 hours to do

  
blocked

   
change-ack
Changes that have releng work and are accepted

  
change-nak
Changes that have releng work and have been rejected

  
change-noreleng
Changes that do not have any releng work

  
changes
  
Closed As
Can't Fix
 Closed with the reason of Can't Fix

  
Closed As
Duplicate
 Closed with the reason of Duplicate

  
Closed As
Fixed
 Closed with the reason of Fixed

  
Closed As
Fixed with Explanation
 Closed with the reason of Fixed with Explanation

  
Closed As
Get back later
 Closed with the reason of Get back later

  
Closed As
Grooming
 Closed with the reason of Grooming

  
Closed As
Insufficient data
 Closed with the reason of Insufficient data

  
Closed As
Invalid
 Closed with the reason of Invalid

  
Closed As
It's all good
 Closed with the reason of It's all good

  
Closed As
taiga
 Closed with the reason of taiga

  
Closed As
upstream
 Closed with the reason of upstream

  
day-to-day
These are small, self-contained tasks that are part of normal operations but are async from sprint planning.

  
dev

   
docs

   
easyfix

   
epel

   
f26

   
f27
Fedora 27

  
f28
Fedora 28

  
f29
Fedora 29

  
f30

   
f31

   
f32

   
f33
Fedora 33

  
f34

   
f35
Fedora 35

  
f36

   
f37

   
f38

   
f39
Fedora 39

  
f40

   
f41
Fedora 41

  
f42
Fedora 42

  
f43
Fedora 43

  
f44
Fedora 44

  
f45
Fedora 45

  
fedora

   
groomed

   
high-gain

   
high-trouble

   
in-progress

   
in-review

   
investigation

   
legal

   
low-gain

   
low-trouble

   
mass rebuild

   
medium-gain

   
medium-trouble

   
meeting

   
mini-initiative

   
new_artifact
New artifact for fedora release

  
ops

   
pdc_retirement

   
rawhide

   
RCA
Root cause analysis

  
review

   
script

   
sidetarget

   
sprint-0

   
sprint-1
Releng Sprint 1 Tracker

  
sprint-2
Sprint 2

  
sprint-3
Releng Sprint 3 Tracker

  
sprint-4
RelEng Spring 4 Tracker

  
sprint-5
RelEng Sprint Tracker 5 (Nov 18 - Dec 02)

  
unfrozen
Revisit after freeze

  
waiting on external
  
Backlog Status
Needs Review
 Needs to go through refinement

  
Backlog Status
Ready
 Ready for sprint

  
chore

   
documentation
  
points
01
 A task that is simple, small, and has very little uncertainty. It should be easy enough for any team member to pick up and complete quickly, without a lot of discussion or research.

  
points
02
 This is a task that is slightly more complex or larger than a "1." It might involve two or three simple steps, but the outcome is still very clear and there's little uncertainty.

  
points
03
 Medium-sized task with some noticeable complexity. It might require a bit more thought or collaboration. The steps are well-defined, but it's not a trivial change.

  
points
05
 A significant piece of work. It has more complexity and a higher degree of uncertainty than smaller tasks. It might require some research, a design discussion, or collaboration across multiple teams.

  
points
08
 Complex task with a lot of uncertainty. It's often the largest size that a team will consider for a single sprint. It likely requires a detailed breakdown and multiple team members to complete.

  
points
13
 Any task that feels like it's a "13" or more is considered an Epic. These are too large and uncertain to be worked on in a single sprint and should be broken down.

  
Priority
High
 This is for work that is critical and needs to be addressed in the next sprint. It's often for urgent bugs, important features, or a major piece of technical debt that is blocking other work.

  
Priority
Low
 This is for work that is good to do but not urgent. It's a candidate for being worked on when there's extra time or when it rises in importance. It can stay in the backlog for a longer period.

  
Priority
Medium
 This is for important work that should be done soon, but isn't as urgent as a high-priority item. It will likely be considered for the next 1-2 sprints.

  
Sprint Status
Blocked
 Work items that cannot progress due to external dependencies, blockers, or issues that need resolution.

  
Sprint Status
Done
 Work items that have been completed, reviewed, and integrated. No further work is needed within the current sprint.

  
Sprint Status
In Progress
 Work items currently being worked on by a team member. Active development, research, or implementation is happening.

  
Sprint Status
Review
 Work items that are complete but need review, testing, or approval before being marked as done.

  
Sprint Status
To Do
 Work items that are committed to the sprint but haven't been started yet. These items are ready to be picked up by team members.

  
Technical Debt
Work that addresses shortcuts, workarounds, or suboptimal implementations that were done previously to meet deadlines. These items improve code quality, maintainability, or performance without adding new features.

  
Work Item
Bug
 Issues where the system is not working as intended or designed. Bugs represent deviations from expected behavior.

  
Work Item
Epic
 Large initiatives that are broken down into multiple smaller work items (user stories, tasks, bugs). Epics represent significant features or projects that span multiple sprints.

  
Work Item
Spike
 Time-boxed research, investigation, or proof-of-concept work to reduce uncertainty or explore solutions. Spikes help inform future development decisions.

  
Work Item
Task
 Used to break down larger user stories into smaller, manageable implementation pieces. They focus on the specific technical steps needed to deliver the user story's value.

  
Work Item
User Story
 User-facing features or functionality that can be framed from a user perspective, describing what someone wants to accomplish and why.

No labels
after freeze
automation
backlog
blocked
change-ack
change-nak
change-noreleng
changes
Closed As
Can't Fix
Closed As
Duplicate
Closed As
Fixed
Closed As
Fixed with Explanation
Closed As
Get back later
Closed As
Grooming
Closed As
Insufficient data
Closed As
Invalid
Closed As
It's all good
Closed As
taiga
Closed As
upstream
day-to-day
dev
docs
easyfix
epel
f26
f27
f28
f29
f30
f31
f32
f33
f34
f35
f36
f37
f38
f39
f40
f41
f42
f43
f44
f45
fedora
groomed
high-gain
high-trouble
in-progress
in-review
investigation
legal
low-gain
low-trouble
mass rebuild
medium-gain
medium-trouble
meeting
mini-initiative
new_artifact
ops
pdc_retirement
rawhide
RCA
review
script
sidetarget
sprint-0
sprint-1
sprint-2
sprint-3
sprint-4
sprint-5
unfrozen
waiting on external
Backlog Status
Needs Review
Backlog Status
Ready
chore
documentation
points
01
points
02
points
03
points
05
points
08
points
13
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Sprint Status
Blocked
Sprint Status
Done
Sprint Status
In Progress
Sprint Status
Review
Sprint Status
To Do
Technical Debt
Work Item
Bug
Work Item
Epic
Work Item
Spike
Work Item
Task
Work Item
User Story
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
7 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Blocks
#544 Zuul CI on pagure.io/github.com hosted projects - what should we do ?
ci/tickets
Reference
releng/tickets#13221
No description provided.