Latest revision as of 13:54, 28 February 2014

Automated packages review tools

Summary

Move the package review off bugzilla by created a dedicated application integrating git, pull-request mechanisms and fedora-review for early feed-back.

Owner

Name: Pierre-Yves Chibon
Name: Stanislav Ochotnicky
Email: pingou - fedoraproject.org & sochotni - fedoraproject.org
Release notes owner: -
Responsible WG: Env & Stacks

Current status

Targeted release: Fedora 22?
Last updated: 2014-02-28
Tracker bug: NA

Detailed Description

The Fedora Review server aims at moving package review off bugzilla. This would allow easy integration with git from the begining of the life of the package (including the review), easy integration with fedora-review to provide early feed-back to new packages submitted.

Eventually this application could become the new faces of pkgs.fedoraproject.org, seats on the top of the git repos where we have all our spec files and provide and support pull-requests allowing new contributors/packagers to help maintaining existing packages.

Benefit to Fedora

Reviews of new packages could be on review for shorter time. Lot of work can be done automatically (licenses, run fedora-review, build in rawhide buildroot, check requirements).

Scope

Create a demo server/application
Speak to FPC if they agree
Run reviews on server
Move reviews from bugzilla
Remove component review from bugzilla
Update documentation

Proposal owners:

Feature owners have to make server working and run it by FPC and FESCo for approval.

Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Packages from review server should be after approval automatically:

* added into dist-git
* build in rawhide

Policies and guidelines: All documents related to reviews must updated.

Upgrade/compatibility impact

N/A (not a System Wide Change)

How To Test

Once the review server is created, create reviews :)

User Experience

Should make the review process a little faster: easier/earlier feedbacks for new packages submitted, easier

Dependencies

N/A (not a System Wide Change)

Contingency Plan

Contingency mechanism: Keep the reviews on the bugzilla.
Contingency deadline: N/A
Blocks release: No
Blocks product: No (although related to the Env & Stack WG)

Documentation

To come.

Release Notes

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 <!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name.  This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
-= Automated packages review tools <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =
+= Automated packages review tools =
 == Summary ==
-<!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. -->
-Package reviews are taking too long, bugzilla is not the best tool for doing them. Let's create a server dedicated to reviews. The fedora-review tool can be used for validation of packages, but that's only a first part. We need to make approved packages automatically appearing in rawhide (or preferred branch).
+Move the package review off bugzilla by created a dedicated application integrating git, pull-request mechanisms and fedora-review for early feed-back.
 == Owner ==
@@ Line 31: / Line 32: @@
 This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are.
 -->
-* Name: [[User:FASAcountName| Your Name]]
+* Name: [[User:pingou| Pierre-Yves Chibon]]
-<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. -->
+* Name: [[User:sochotni| Stanislav Ochotnicky]]
-* Email: <your email address so we can contact you, invite you to meetings, etc.>
+* Email: pingou - fedoraproject.org & sochotni - fedoraproject.org
-* Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
+* Release notes owner: -
 <!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo)
 * FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address>
 -->
-<!--- UNCOMMENT only if this Change aims specific product, working group (Cloud, Workstation, Server, Base, Env & Stacks)
+* Responsible WG: Env & Stacks
-* Product:
-* Responsible WG:
--->
 == Current status ==
-* Targeted release: [[Releases/<number> | Fedora 22? ]]
+* Targeted release: [[Releases/22 | Fedora 22? ]]
-* Last updated: (DATE)
+* Last updated: 2014-02-28
 <!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page
 Bugzilla states meaning as usual:
@@ Line 54: / Line 52: @@
 CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
 -->
-* Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
+* Tracker bug: NA
 == Detailed Description ==
-<!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate.  A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. -->
+The Fedora Review server aims at moving package review off [http://bugzilla.redhat.com bugzilla]. This would allow easy integration with git from the begining of the life of the package (including the review), easy integration with fedora-review to provide early feed-back to new packages submitted.
+Eventually this application could become the new faces of pkgs.fedoraproject.org, seats on the top of the git repos where we have all our spec files and provide and support pull-requests allowing new contributors/packagers to help maintaining existing packages.
 == Benefit to Fedora ==
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 == Scope ==
 <!-- What work do the developers have to accomplish to complete the change in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
-Run reviews on server, close reviews in bugzilla, remove component review from bugzilla, change documentation on wiki pages about reviews, speak to FPC if they agree...
+* Create a demo server/application
+* Speak to FPC if they agree
+* Run reviews on server
+* Move reviews from bugzilla
+* Remove component review from bugzilla
+* Update documentation
 * Proposal owners:
-<!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
+Feature owners have to make server working and run it by FPC and FESCo for approval.
-Feature owners have to make server working and then clean Fedora bugzilla from existing reviews.
-* Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
-<!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
+* Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
-* Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-<!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)?  Is a mass rebuid required?  If a rel-eng ticket exists, add a link here.  -->
 Packages from review server should be after approval automatically:
@@ Line 81: / Line 84: @@
   * build in rawhide
-* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Policies and guidelines: All documents related to reviews must updated.
-<!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature?  If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done?  If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. -->
-All documents related to reviews must change.
 == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
-<!-- What happens to systems that have had a previous versions of Fedora installed and are updated to the version containing this change? Will anything require manual configuration or data migration? Will any existing functionality be no longer supported? -->
-<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
 N/A (not a System Wide Change)
 == How To Test ==
-<!-- This does not need to be a full-fledged document. Describe the dimensions of tests that this change implementation is expected to pass when it is done.  If it needs to be tested with different hardware or software configurations, indicate them.  The more specific you can be, the better the community testing can be.
-Remember that you are writing this how to for interested testers to use to check out your change implementation - documenting what you do for testing is OK, but it's much better to document what *I* can do to test your change.
+Once the review server is created, create reviews :)
-A good "how to test" should answer these four questions:
-. What special hardware / data / etc. is needed (if any)?
+== User Experience ==
-. How do I prepare my system to test this change? What packages
-need to be installed, config files edited, etc.?
-. What specific actions do I perform to check that the change is
-working like it's supposed to?
-. What are the expected results of those actions?
--->
-<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
-== User Experience ==
+Should make the review process a little faster: easier/earlier feedbacks for new packages submitted, easier
-<!-- If this change proposal is noticeable by its target audience, how will their experiences change as a result?  Describe what they will see or notice. -->
-<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
 == Dependencies ==
-<!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package?  Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends?  In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate?  Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? -->
-<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
 N/A (not a System Wide Change)
 == Contingency Plan ==
-<!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan?  This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration".  Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages).  If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy.  -->
+* Contingency mechanism: Keep the reviews on the bugzilla.
-* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Contingency deadline: N/A
-<!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place?  This will typically be the beta freeze. -->
+* Blocks release: No
-* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+* Blocks product: No (although related to the Env & Stack WG)
-<!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? -->
-* Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
-* Blocks product? product <-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next -->
 == Documentation ==
-<!-- Is there upstream documentation on this change, or notes you have written yourself?  Link to that material here so other interested developers can get involved. -->
-<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
+To come.
-N/A (not a System Wide Change)
 == Release Notes ==

Search

Env and Stacks/Changes Drafts/Automated packages review tools: Difference between revisions