19:04:49 #startmeeting Fedora Infrastructure Ops Daily Standup Meeting 19:04:49 Meeting started Fri Jan 10 19:04:49 2020 UTC. 19:04:49 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 19:04:49 The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:04:49 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:04:49 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_infrastructure_ops_daily_standup_meeting' 19:04:50 #chair smooge nirik relrod cverna 19:04:50 #info meeting is 30 minutes MAX. At the end of 30, its stops 19:04:50 #info agenda is at https://board.net/p/fedora-infra-daily 19:04:50 Current chairs: cverna nirik relrod smooge 19:05:14 again sorry whatever I did to create this meeting in various calendars turned off any notifications on it 19:05:56 yeah, it never notifies me either 19:06:25 #topic Tickets needing review 19:06:25 #info https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues 19:06:34 .ticket 8516 19:06:35 and my dog just decided she wants to go out, brb 19:06:35 nirik: Issue #8516: fedmsg-gateway on Python3 needs monitoring fixes - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8516 19:06:43 that should just go to waiting on assignee? 19:06:47 pagure.issue.edit -- smooge edited the priority fields of ticket fedora-infrastructure#8516 https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8516 19:06:55 yep 19:06:57 .ticket 8519 19:07:00 nirik: Issue #8519: Wiki edit privileges - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8519 19:07:11 I guess we just add em, but they don't really say what they want to edit... 19:07:36 I am going to say "what are you going to work on in the ticket. If I hear from them I will add them 19:07:52 Wasn't this supposed to be done by the join sig ? 19:08:01 yes and no 19:08:13 :) 19:08:17 pagure.issue.edit -- smooge edited the priority fields of ticket fedora-infrastructure#8519 https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8519 19:08:18 pagure.issue.comment.added -- smooge commented on ticket fedora-infrastructure#8519: "Wiki edit privileges" https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8519#comment-620189 19:08:21 pagure.issue.assigned.added -- smooge assigned ticket fedora-infrastructure#8519 to smooge https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8519 19:08:30 if they just wanted to join we are supposed to point them to fedora-join 19:08:45 if they want to edit wiki stuff thats outsside the scope of any group we should add them 19:09:03 so basically we are now doing dual sets of work 19:09:26 well, we are doing the same work mostly... 19:09:29 Ok maybe in the new fas we should have something better to do that 19:09:34 asking for what they want to do with it and acting on that 19:09:59 we could relax constraints on the wiki (but that could backfire) 19:10:29 so if we had the time versus a 3 month deadline.. I would look at building a two tiered auth system like Mozilla and some other groups use. 19:10:36 Yes and there aren't many requests like that 19:10:37 we do also have a template for this (which people never use) 19:11:08 well, lets move any larger discussion to the list or outside the meeting... 19:11:18 +1 19:11:34 .ticket 8520 19:11:35 nirik: Issue #8520: Extend Pagure API token lifetime - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8520 19:12:32 I have nothing to say on this one 19:12:38 this seems like a pagure issue that spilled out to us. ;) 19:12:41 * relrod returns 19:12:58 i am thinking it is also a policy issue 19:13:08 well, I don't think we can adjust the policy... 19:13:29 if we want these to be longer it can be done (say in the source code), but we need to say we want it longer. 19:13:57 if we are saying our policy is 60 days for XYZ reason and pagure reflects that it is something else 19:14:04 ok I guess I have something to say after all 19:14:21 well, as far as I know 60 days is what pagure does... 19:14:37 I'd say waiting on reporter to see if they have a specific key they want extended. If we get more complaints then we can revisit the policy issue? 19:14:45 The idea was to use openidc token that can be renewed more easily. But we need to land that upstream 19:15:32 which iirc waits on changes in ipsilon 19:15:56 we already provide longer token to like releng for the rcm requests 19:16:05 relrod: +1 19:16:13 they should just generate a token and work w/ us on extending its lifetime 19:16:15 pingou: yes, but only on request... 19:16:23 +1 19:16:27 Yeah but Patrick said yesterday we might not need it. Anyhow we going down too much details 19:16:29 if we have 30 people requesting extensions it becomes... anoying 19:16:48 agreed 19:17:07 yeah but this is really the first (outside of things like releng) right? 19:17:27 sure, but the 3-4 releng people are already somme work. 19:17:28 we have a few for ourselves (simple-koji-ci, loopabull) 19:17:37 anyhow, lets wait on reporter... 19:17:43 and try and move OIDC forward. 19:18:29 +1 19:18:49 smooge: got the mods to the ticket, or shall I? 19:19:02 pagure.issue.edit -- smooge edited the priority fields of ticket fedora-infrastructure#8520 https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8520 19:19:04 any other tickets we want to talk about? any backlog ones? 19:19:16 pagure.issue.edit -- smooge edited the priority fields of ticket fedora-infrastructure#8519 https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8519 19:19:33 nirik, done 19:20:43 pagure.issue.comment.added -- pingou commented on ticket fedora-infrastructure#8286: "bugzilla assigning packages to my old email address" https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8286#comment-620194 19:20:59 pingou: can we close some of those bz ones now? 19:21:09 did you also see the output erroring on test and flatpaks? 19:21:13 nirik: I wish! 19:21:48 nirik: yes, both of them do not have component in bz so that makes sense 19:22:03 tests won't I guess, for flatpaks no idea 19:22:15 yeah, so likely just exclude/ignore those 19:22:33 agreed 19:22:37 ot 19:22:39 it 19:22:45 will need a small code change 19:23:13 the ticket for the erlang sig pkgdb group has been handled 19:23:26 it's waiting on bowlofeggs to confirm it works as desired and then we can close it 19:23:36 pagure.issue.edit -- pingou edited the priority fields of ticket fedora-infrastructure#7456 https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7456 19:23:42 pagure.issue.assigned.added -- pingou assigned ticket fedora-infrastructure#7456 to pingou https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7456 19:24:13 .ticket 7628 19:24:16 nirik: Issue #7628: bugzilla - change default assignee for cockpit - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7628 19:24:39 I think we can close that? 19:24:55 .ticket 6985 19:24:56 nirik: Issue #6985: pagure-sync-bugzilla.py does not handle pagure.io outtages - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6985 19:24:56 Failed to update: `Fedora/cockpit`: 19:24:58 +account.'> 19:25:04 ah ha! 19:25:20 6985 is still valid but since the script runs twice a day, meh 19:25:35 .... reads that email name 19:25:36 fine closing if you like 19:25:50 close it . close it . close it 19:25:54 .ticket 7639 19:25:55 nirik: Issue #7639: please remove retired packages from bugzilla components list - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7639 19:25:57 and with the changes we're doing to bring bugzilla overrides to dist-git, the time it takes to query src will be much shorter 19:26:12 7639 should be there (to be confirmed but iirc we added that) 19:27:35 hum, doesn't seem to be working. 19:27:49 It lets me try and open a bug on a old retired package 19:28:19 or does it only work on things retired after the script was put in place? 19:28:42 pagure.issue.comment.added -- pingou commented on ticket fedora-infrastructure#6985: "pagure-sync-bugzilla.py does not handle pagure.io outtages" https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6985#comment-620198 19:28:54 should be relying on pdc iirc 19:29:15 pagure.issue.comment.added -- kevin commented on ticket fedora-infrastructure#6985: "pagure-sync-bugzilla.py does not handle pagure.io outtages" https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6985#comment-620199 19:29:27 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=rawhide&component=Terminal 19:30:15 Terminal doesn't show in the error report 19:30:28 pagure.issue.edit -- pingou edited the close_status and status fields of ticket fedora-infrastructure#6985 https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6985 19:30:33 It's an old long ago retired package 19:30:56 we can investigate in ticket I guess... 19:31:01 shall we close out here? 19:31:01 let's do that 19:31:17 we can also run the script for a single component now to see what it would do 19:31:49 so you can run it with --debug and -p rpms/Terminal 19:32:07 nice. 19:32:13 Thanks for input everyone! 19:32:17 #endmeeting