Packit Pagure support (was: [RFC] Optionally using git repositories instead of the lookaside cache)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org wrote:
We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea.
When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now.
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org wrote:
We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea.
When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now.
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
The whole situation is bit unfortunate, as the announcement made it seem like pagure.io is going away. SSSD project just yesterday switched to Github from Pagure.
I hope to see Pagure continue doing great things, and I appreciate your involvement.
V/r, James Cassell
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:55 PM James Cassell fedoraproject@cyberpear.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org wrote:
We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea.
When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now.
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
The whole situation is bit unfortunate, as the announcement made it seem like pagure.io is going away. SSSD project just yesterday switched to Github from Pagure.
I hope to see Pagure continue doing great things, and I appreciate your involvement.
That's disappointing. On the flip side, the ironthree project (Rust clients and libraries for Fedora infrastructure) moved from GitHub to Pagure last week: https://pagure.io/projects/ironthree/%2A
I'm not moving Ipsilon to GitHub either.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:54 -0400, James Cassell wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org wrote:
We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea.
When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now.
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
The whole situation is bit unfortunate, as the announcement made it seem like pagure.io is going away.
I mean, I have my issues with the announcement, but this seems like an unfair criticism. The *first paragraph* ends with "We are opting for GitLab for our dist git and project hosting and will continue to run pagure.io with community assistance." Every other mention of pagure.io clearly communicates that it will continue to run for at least a year and the preference is to keep it running permanently with community maintenance. I don't know where you get the idea that it is going away from the announcement.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 1:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:54 -0400, James Cassell wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
The whole situation is bit unfortunate, as the announcement made it seem like pagure.io is going away.
I mean, I have my issues with the announcement, but this seems like an unfair criticism. The *first paragraph* ends with "We are opting for GitLab for our dist git and project hosting and will continue to run pagure.io with community assistance." Every other mention of pagure.io clearly communicates that it will continue to run for at least a year and the preference is to keep it running permanently with community maintenance. I don't know where you get the idea that it is going away from the announcement.
"at least a year" sounds like it's going away in a year from now in a "writing is on the wall" sort of way. I myself do understand it's not the plan to get rid of pagure.io, but I think many have a perception that it's future is uncertain.
Container Linux was going to stay around for a year after FCOS came out, but that got cut short to less than a year.
V/r, James Cassell
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:34 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org wrote:
We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea.
When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now.
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
Neal, I understand you are frustrated after I read some of your responses in other threads. I'd appreciate if you didn't use such strong language when reaching out to me.
My point with the sentence was that we'd be busy adding GitLab integration into packit in coming months, tightening our capacity. I also didn't say anything about pagure.io going away. I was just interested in the details.
Actually, pagure support is being added to packit these days (starting here [1]). So far no one was pushing us hard to add native pagure.io integration hence it's not present. To this day we've received a bunch of requests to support GitLab [2] (you're on the thread as well) and that's it.
If you have a strong case for having packit working with pagure.io (doing RPM builds for PRs mainly), please open an issue [3] so we can track this request. Once [1] is merged, it shouldn't be that difficult to do such a thing (I expect that pagure.io and git.centos.org use the same fedmsg payloads though).
[1] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/pull/515 [2] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/249 [3] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/new
Cheers, Tomas
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:55 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:34 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:41 AM Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org wrote:
We actually are. I assume you're asking about why we're not using packit. We're not on GitHub so the service isn't (as far as I can tell) useful to us. There's huge piles of existing bash scripts and makefiles that achieve about what I think packit-the-cli would give us so it would be some amount of work with no obvious benefit to move at the moment. Generally speaking, though, I'm not against the idea.
When we started packit, we played with the scripts and makefiles in your kernel repo and I hope it's not too bold of me to say that it shouldn't be that hard to integrate the two now.
I'm assuming you're using pagure.io - at this point, we're not going to integrate packit with pagure (for obvious reasons). What are your future plans for the git forge?
What the heck are you talking about? pagure.io is not going away anytime soon. And there will be other pagure instances that host source code that packit integration support would be useful for.
Hell, I've already offered to help with the pagure.io service.
Neal, I understand you are frustrated after I read some of your responses in other threads. I'd appreciate if you didn't use such strong language when reaching out to me.
My point with the sentence was that we'd be busy adding GitLab integration into packit in coming months, tightening our capacity. I also didn't say anything about pagure.io going away. I was just interested in the details.
Actually, pagure support is being added to packit these days (starting here [1]). So far no one was pushing us hard to add native pagure.io integration hence it's not present. To this day we've received a bunch of requests to support GitLab [2] (you're on the thread as well) and that's it.
If you have a strong case for having packit working with pagure.io (doing RPM builds for PRs mainly), please open an issue [3] so we can track this request. Once [1] is merged, it shouldn't be that difficult to do such a thing (I expect that pagure.io and git.centos.org use the same fedmsg payloads though).
[1] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/pull/515 [2] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/249 [3] https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/new
Issue filed: https://github.com/packit-service/packit-service/issues/556
I didn't realize nobody had filed an issue for it. I assumed it had already been done as part of getting parity for a Fedora service for projects hosted on Fedora infrastructure.
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
James Cassell -
Neal Gompa -
Tomas Tomecek