releng/tickets
15
3
Fork 2
Code Issues 94 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Add commit privilege for https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/ to proven packagers #9927

New issue
Closed
opened 2021-01-02 16:45:21 +00:00 by zbyszek · 26 comments
zbyszek commented 2021-01-02 16:45:21 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

A few years ago comps were writable by any packager. With a move to pagure, the list of people who can make changes was severely curtailed, currently just a few people + releng. This was done without any discussion, implicitly as part of the move.

As with other similar setups, this creates a choke point whenever @releng is swamped with other things. Pull requests to comps are not being reviewed and merged in time (https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/509, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/543, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/567, others).

I'm sure plenty of people would like to help with this, but are blocked by the centralization of write privileges. I think allowing all proven packagers to write to the repo would help resolve the issue. There is really no need to restrict this to @releng, since @releng doesn't really know too much about KDE spin or i3 desktop. Groups should be managed by people who work on those groups. Restricting this to proven packagers is a reasonable compromise IMHO.

  • When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)

Weeks rather than months.

  • When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)

Never.

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?

See description.

A few years ago comps were writable by any packager. With a move to pagure, the list of people who can make changes was severely curtailed, currently just a few people + releng. This was done without any discussion, implicitly as part of the move. As with other similar setups, this creates a choke point whenever @releng is swamped with other things. Pull requests to comps are not being reviewed and merged in time (https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/509, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/543, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/567, others). I'm sure plenty of people would like to help with this, but are blocked by the centralization of write privileges. I think allowing all proven packagers to write to the repo would help resolve the issue. There is really no need to restrict this to @releng, since @releng doesn't really know too much about KDE spin or i3 desktop. Groups should be managed by people who work on those groups. Restricting this to proven packagers is a reasonable compromise IMHO. * When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) Weeks rather than months. * When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) Never. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? See description.
ngompa commented 2021-01-02 17:25:53 +00:00
Member
Copy link

The provenpackager and packager groups do not exist on pagure.io. That said, virtually all major SIGs have corresponding pagure.io groups, so we could request to grant those write permissions.

At least offhand, all working groups and the KDE SIG have membership managed through Pagure groups on pagure.io.

The provenpackager and packager groups do not exist on pagure.io. That said, virtually all major SIGs have corresponding pagure.io groups, so we could request to grant those write permissions. At least offhand, all working groups and the KDE SIG have membership managed through Pagure groups on pagure.io.
churchyard commented 2021-01-02 18:09:47 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

+1 to the idea. If this is technically not possible, we could make a "comps sig" group and populate it with any provenpackager and/or package group maintainer who expresses interest.

+1 to the idea. If this is technically not possible, we could make a "comps sig" group and populate it with any provenpackager and/or package group maintainer who expresses interest.
kevin commented 2021-01-02 19:25:26 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I'm gonna dispute your premise...

As with other similar setups, this creates a choke point whenever @releng is swamped with other things. Pull requests to comps are not being reviewed and merged in time (https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/509, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/543, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/567, others).

509 -> as you asked in comments, the status is unknown. Really to merge this we need input from the kde sig... and the pull request isn't something they are pushing, just something someone else decided to do.

543 -> was just missed, a ping anytime would have gotten someone to merge it. It's merged now.

567 -> filed the day after xmas... I didn't expect anyone to see it until after holidays, but it's simple enough, so I just merged it.

Everything else is still under discussion/deveopment...

I don't think the problem is lack of people to merge things, I think it's more a lack of subject matter experts/sigs/working groups providing timely review.

Or perhaps it's that we don't close PR's very well. IMHO 509 and 488 could be dropped with "please figure it out in kde land and resubmit when everyone is happy with it"

Anyhow, I have no objection to adding more people to merge things, but I don't think thats the problem.

I'm gonna dispute your premise... > As with other similar setups, this creates a choke point whenever @releng is swamped with other things. Pull requests to comps are not being reviewed and merged in time (https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/509, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/543, https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/567, others). 509 -> as you asked in comments, the status is unknown. Really to merge this we need input from the kde sig... and the pull request isn't something they are pushing, just something someone else decided to do. 543 -> was just missed, a ping anytime would have gotten someone to merge it. It's merged now. 567 -> filed the day after xmas... I didn't expect anyone to see it until after holidays, but it's simple enough, so I just merged it. Everything else is still under discussion/deveopment... I don't think the problem is lack of people to merge things, I think it's more a lack of subject matter experts/sigs/working groups providing timely review. Or perhaps it's that we don't close PR's very well. IMHO 509 and 488 could be dropped with "please figure it out in kde land and resubmit when everyone is happy with it" Anyhow, I have no objection to adding more people to merge things, but I don't think thats the problem.
zbyszek commented 2021-01-03 11:53:45 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

was just missed, a ping anytime would have gotten someone to merge it
filed the day after xmas... I

Yeah, but I don't want to ping you (or other releng members) during the holidays. That's essentially the whole point: I (and I assume others) want to help, without interrupting your well-deserved time off, but we're blocked by overly restrictive policy.

Anyhow, I have no objection to adding more people to merge things

Cool.

> was just missed, a ping anytime would have gotten someone to merge it > filed the day after xmas... I Yeah, but I don't want to ping you (or other releng members) during the holidays. That's essentially the whole point: I (and I assume others) want to help, without interrupting your well-deserved time off, but we're blocked by overly restrictive policy. > Anyhow, I have no objection to adding more people to merge things Cool.
mohanboddu commented 2021-01-04 19:10:45 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

We need to look at how to sync fas groups into pagure.io, pinging @pingou for more insight.

We need to look at how to sync fas groups into pagure.io, pinging @pingou for more insight.
mohanboddu commented 2021-01-04 19:10:45 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:

  • Issue tagged with: high-trouble, medium-gain, ops
**Metadata Update from @mohanboddu**: - Issue tagged with: high-trouble, medium-gain, ops
mohanboddu commented 2021-01-05 16:15:38 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

From the releng meeting today

[11:14:12] <mboddu> #info pingou is going to look at how we can sync the fas groups into pagure.io
From the releng meeting today ``` [11:14:12] <mboddu> #info pingou is going to look at how we can sync the fas groups into pagure.io ```
mohanboddu commented 2021-01-05 16:15:56 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:

  • Issue untagged with: high-trouble, ops
  • Issue tagged with: dev, medium-trouble
**Metadata Update from @mohanboddu**: - Issue **un**tagged with: high-trouble, ops - Issue tagged with: dev, medium-trouble
zbyszek commented 2021-02-20 14:23:03 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

@pingou: any progress on this?

@pingou: any progress on this?
oturpe commented 2021-08-22 05:10:55 +00:00
Copy link

This would be useful to package-maintainer-docs as well,
that repo it a good candidate to be managed by the fas packager group.

This would be useful to [package-maintainer-docs][link] as well, that repo it a good candidate to be managed by the fas `packager` group. [link]: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs
kevin commented 2022-07-12 15:46:48 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I wonder... could we make a fedora-comps rpm package (thats just comps files) on src.fedoraproject.org and then point pungi/etc to use that instead of the pagure.io one?

Then it would still be open for pr's and it would also be open to provenpackagers to make changes?

But then we have the overhead of making the rpm from time to time...

I wonder... could we make a fedora-comps rpm package (thats just comps files) on src.fedoraproject.org and then point pungi/etc to use that instead of the pagure.io one? Then it would still be open for pr's and it would also be open to provenpackagers to make changes? But then we have the overhead of making the rpm from time to time...
zbyszek commented 2022-11-10 09:23:46 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

could we make a fedora-comps rpm package (thats just comps files) on src.fedoraproject.org

If people find this idea acceptable, I'd be happy to provide a spec file and take it through review.

But then we have the overhead of making the rpm from time to time...

Would we want to actually ever build the package? We could just have it in dist-git and point pungi/etc directly to the dist-git repo. This would solve the access issues without changing the workflow.

> could we make a fedora-comps rpm package (thats just comps files) on src.fedoraproject.org If people find this idea acceptable, I'd be happy to provide a spec file and take it through review. > But then we have the overhead of making the rpm from time to time... Would we want to actually ever build the package? We could just have it in dist-git and point pungi/etc directly to the dist-git repo. This would solve the access issues without changing the workflow.
kevin commented 2022-11-20 18:08:02 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

One possible monkey wrench in this plan: translations. We have weblate pushing to the pagure repo. I am not sure it can do that to src.fedoraproject.org.

One possible monkey wrench in this plan: translations. We have weblate pushing to the pagure repo. I am not sure it can do that to src.fedoraproject.org.
zbyszek commented 2022-11-21 08:07:08 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

It'd need to be pointed at a different address, but in principle it could work. You can submit pull requests on src.fp.o without a packager account.

It'd need to be pointed at a different address, but in principle it could work. You can submit pull requests on src.fp.o without a packager account.
smilner commented 2025-03-03 16:49:44 +00:00
Copy link

Is this still needed work?

Is this still needed work?
zbyszek commented 2025-03-03 19:34:28 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

I think that at this point, it doesn't make sense to work on new functionality for pagure. When we move to the new forge, we should revisit the topic.

I think that at this point, it doesn't make sense to work on new functionality for pagure. When we move to the new forge, we should revisit the topic.
jnsamyak added this to the Backlog project 2026-03-19 12:00:27 +00:00
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-29 12:00:36 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Reviving this now that we've moved to Forgejo.

There were two directions discussed:

  • Expand commit access on the comps repo to provenpackagers / a dedicated comps-sig group (the original ask)
  • Migrate fedora-comps to be a proper dist-git package, sidestepping the ACL question entirely by relying on the existing provenpackager workflow (favored more in later comments)

Before I put time into either, I want to confirm: is the dist-git approach still the preferred direction? If so, I can start on the spec file and figure out the Weblate-to-dist-git translation push question that was left open. If the group access route is preferred instead, I can look at what it'd take to sync FAS groups for repo permissions on the new forge.

Reviving this now that we've moved to Forgejo. There were two directions discussed: - Expand commit access on the comps repo to provenpackagers / a dedicated comps-sig group (the original ask) - Migrate fedora-comps to be a proper dist-git package, sidestepping the ACL question entirely by relying on the existing provenpackager workflow (favored more in later comments) Before I put time into either, I want to confirm: is the dist-git approach still the preferred direction? If so, I can start on the spec file and figure out the Weblate-to-dist-git translation push question that was left open. If the group access route is preferred instead, I can look at what it'd take to sync FAS groups for repo permissions on the new forge.
zbyszek commented 2026-06-29 14:49:07 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

Moving to dist-git was motivated by not being able to use the FAS groups on pagure.io. But IIUC, we can use FAS groups on forge.fp.o, so we don't need to do that. Can we just move it to the forge? Oh, I see it already is at https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/fedora-comps.

Expand commit access on the comps repo to provenpackagers / a dedicated comps-sig group (the original ask)

Yes, please.

Moving to dist-git was motivated by not being able to use the FAS groups on pagure.io. But IIUC, we *can* use FAS groups on forge.fp.o, so we don't need to do that. Can we just move it to the forge? Oh, I see it already is at https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/fedora-comps. > Expand commit access on the comps repo to provenpackagers / a dedicated comps-sig group (the original ask) Yes, please.
kevin commented 2026-06-29 17:29:39 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Yeah, I don't think we should move it to dist-git anymore, just add a mapping that allows all provenpackagers to be maintainers
I think this is doable just via a mapping in ansible for forge, @ryanlerch ?

Yeah, I don't think we should move it to dist-git anymore, just add a mapping that allows all provenpackagers to be maintainers I think this is doable just via a mapping in ansible for forge, @ryanlerch ?
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-30 07:36:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Yes, I'll take care of that here: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/releng/teams/proven-packagers-team; Need to make some ansible and ipa group tweaks.

Yes, I'll take care of that here: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/org/releng/teams/proven-packagers-team; Need to make some ansible and ipa group tweaks.
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-30 07:42:09 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

created a group in ipa named with forge-releng-proven-packagers which has a provenpackagers group inherited.

created a group in ipa named with forge-releng-proven-packagers which has a provenpackagers group inherited.
jnsamyak commented 2026-06-30 07:50:28 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

ansible pr: infra/ansible#3460
Once the CI is 🟢, I'll run the playbook

ansible pr: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/ansible/pulls/3460 Once the CI is 🟢, I'll run the playbook
kevin commented 2026-06-30 18:37:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Hum. This seems to have added them as admin/owners? I am not sure we want that... although I guess it's not the end of the world. Ideally I think they should just be members/maintainers.

Hum. This seems to have added them as admin/owners? I am not sure we want that... although I guess it's not the end of the world. Ideally I think they should just be members/maintainers.
jnsamyak commented 2026-07-01 07:32:03 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I can change that in team settings with ACLs required; it should not be a biggie.

I can change that in team settings with ACLs required; it should not be a biggie.
jnsamyak commented 2026-07-01 08:24:36 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Okay the playbook is merged, and ran! It should reflect soon, happy forge.

Okay the playbook is merged, and ran! It should reflect soon, happy forge.
jnsamyak commented 2026-07-02 09:29:08 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

If there are any more issues, please let me know. Also make sure to re-login I guess to reflect in the team group.

If there are any more issues, please let me know. Also make sure to re-login I guess to reflect in the team group.
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
Current Sprint ( 2026-06-29 to 2026-07-12 )
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
jnsamyak
8 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
releng/tickets#9927
No description provided.