Just noting that @jmracek has access to DNF repo through rpm-software-management-sig group.

Please @ignatenkobrain can you add commit permission to me for libdnf, dnf, dnf-plugins-core, dnf-plugins-extras. Thanks a lot.

Everything looks correct from what I can see.

What error(s) do you get when you try and file an update? Or what are you trying to do?

On https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new I created update for dnf package. When I submitted that update I got something like: "jmracek does not have commit access to dnf".

Hope that it helps

Strange. I do see kanarip submitted some dnf updates about an hour ago, so I wonder if it's not allowing you to obsolete them somehow.

@bowlofeggs any ideas on this issue? How does bodhi check that someone has commit?

I also would like to know who can administrate rpm-software-management-sig group, because our team need to add new members.

That would be currently @ignatenkobrain or @dmach (anyone who is marked as a sponsor or admin in the fas group).

Is it possible that there are two accounts jmracek in one? I created an account here time ago, but in some views it reports that my account was created a mount ago. Sometime I am a member of group, sometime not, depend if I looked at my account or from click on me as member of rpm-software-management-sig group.

Bodhi recently switched from pkgdb to Pagure as a source of truth for who has commit access. My suspicion is that this may be a good area to investigate. I'll look into that and report back!

I believe the issue is that Bodhi doesn't know about all the groups that its users are members of, only special groups (like packager or releng). It relies on its ACL system to expand group membership for it when it asks for ACLs on packages, and Pagure is not expanding the rpm-software-management-sig members. Thus, only @ignatenkobrain is being counted as having access by Bodhi's ACL system.

I filed https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1810 to track this upstream.

Yeah, pagure may have expanded groups at one point, but I think we changed that when we ran into the problem of it adding all the maintainers in a group to CC on bugzilla bugs instead of the group.

So, perhaps we could add to pagure api something that says "please expand these groups I am asking for" or "please do not expand groups" and bodhi and the bugzilla sync script that each request what they want here?

@ralph @mprahl @pingou Does that sound like the way forward? And where should we track this?

Yeah, pagure may have expanded groups at one point, but I think we changed that when we ran into the problem of it adding all the maintainers in a group to CC on bugzilla bugs instead of the group.

That was the case but for the /api/0/ns/name/watchers API endpoint which is not the one bodhi uses if I read the code correctly.

So, perhaps we could add to pagure api something that says "please expand these groups I am asking for"

This sounds fair

PR to improve Pagure's API: https://pagure.io/pagure/pull-request/2627

Bodhi PR: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1836

Pagure's new API is now deployed and bodhi's patch is pending tests/review.

So let's close this ticket as Upstream as this turns out to be a bodhi issue :)

Thanks everyone!