Convert the zuul migration script into enrollment script #679
Conversation
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 28s |
LecrisUT
force-pushed
the
feat/enrolment-script
branch
from
ebc5dd3 to
3c4aa1e
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 30s |
Migrate Zuul CI users to Fedora CI TODO: Update the package list with all the current Zuul CI users Prepare announcement email, see scripts/migrate-zuul-users.py Do the announcement and gather feedback (devel-lists, discussion) Merge and profit? Disable Zuul CI for dist-git PRs (Full disablement requires at least packit/packit-service#2920) Adjust the script to instead add new contributors similar to zuul-config-generator (Handled in #679) Blocked by packit/packit-service#2856 RELEASE NOTES BEGIN Zuul CI users have been migrated to Fedora CI RELEASE NOTES END Reviewed-by: František Lachman <flachman@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cristian Le <github@lecris.me> Reviewed-by: Nikola Forró Reviewed-by: Laura Barcziová Reviewed-by: Vít Ondruch
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <git@lecris.dev>
LecrisUT
force-pushed
the
feat/enrolment-script
branch
from
3c4aa1e to
f1a3637
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 32s |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new script looks good to me.
I am only wondering whether we should also keep the old "bulk" script.
I don't know how we are supposed to deal with orphaned packages. Should we run the bulk script once a year (or more) to get rid of not-maintained packages? In that case the old script probably needs some adjustments.
Actually, I see there is an orphan maintainer in pagure_bz.json; should we add a special flag, in the new script, for removing its packages instead of adding them?
Alternatively, we could do nothing, since orphaned packages shouldn't generate work for us. However, if an orphaned package becomes maintained again, should we already be managing it, or is it better for the new maintainers to enroll it?
@lbarcziova or @nforro WDYT?
I don't think so. We are not merging any PRs in zuul to enroll new users there, and even if we need to do it, we will handle it manually as needed.
I am leaning towards this. Hopefully this script is not long-lived also, and we could replace the jenkins handler for the PRs as soon as possible. |
I'm confused. What is the old "bulk" script?
Isn't this just a temporary measure until the switch to default happens in about a month? At which point there will be only a list of packages that want to opt-out? |
The script that is being replaced in this PR. |
lbarcziova
left a comment
lbarcziova
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks! We planned to switch to default for 16th of February, this will be great in the meantime and we can then maybe reuse some parts for the opt-out and stg opt-in. So as @nforro says, no need for taking care of the orphaned packages etc. here
| SCRIPTS_DIR = Path(__file__).parent | ||
| ROOT_DIR = SCRIPTS_DIR.parent | ||
| packit_service_file = ROOT_DIR / "secrets/packit/prod/packit-service.yaml.j2" | ||
| SKIP_JINJA_LINES = 32 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like too much hardcoding this, but since this will be short-lived, if other solution takes too much time, we can go with this
4 participants
This converts the old script used to migrate the zuul users to instead do what zuul-config-generator did.
packit/packit.dev. Documentscripts/enroll-users.pyfor Fedora CI packit.dev#1085Merge after #672
RELEASE NOTES BEGIN
Fedora-CI users can be enrolled by running the script
scripts/enroll-users.py. This replaces the script zuul-config-generator that was used in the Zuul CI.RELEASE NOTES END