#7456 erlang group in src.fpo
Closed: Fixed 3 years ago by bowlofeggs. Opened 5 years ago by bowlofeggs.

  • Describe what you need us to do:
    Greetings! We in the Erlang SIG would like to be able to give SIG members ACLs on our Erlang packages. We have a FAS group called erlang, but I don't seem to be able to select it in Pagure at src.fedoraproject.org in order to grant SIG members access to my Erlang packages. Does someone need to add a mapping from FAS group to Pagure group for us?

  • When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
    No rush.

  • When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
    If we stop doing Erlang.

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
    We'll have to go on the way we do now.


The existing erlang group is the wrong type for this currently.

@pingou do you see any issue with changing it's type in fas and using it as a pkgdb group?

@kevin I don't foresee any, we should be able to create it in dist-git and let the memberships sync. We may not even need to change anything in FAS :)

Note: pagure-admin new-group should make our life simpler wrt creating groups on dist-git :)

ok. I made the group on the pagure side. @bowlofeggs you will need to logout and back on to pick up the group membership.

I think if you add the group to commit it should allow folks in the group to commit.

Let us know if you have any issues.

:pound:

Metadata Update from @kevin:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

5 years ago

It looks like the group is called erlang-sig, but the FAS group I think is just called erlang. It looks like nobody is in erlang-sig:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/group/erlang-sig

Should I just create an erlang-sig group in FAS, or should we just name the group erlang in src.fpo?

Metadata Update from @bowlofeggs:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

4 years ago

Should I just create an erlang-sig group in FAS, or should we just name the group erlang in src.fpo?

Historically, we've used -sig for groups name, it makes it obvious that it is a group (user aren't allowed to use - in their name), so I'd vote for creating the erlang-sig group in FAS (it also makes it consistent with the other groups).

sadly we cannot create the group in fas, because it's already used by a username.

I don't know that we can convert it into a group without deleting it somehow... but in any case database accesss level stuff. ;(

For now let me just remove the group and we can figure out what to do.

What do we want to do about this ticket?

FAS has an erlang group, dist-git an erlang-sig group. We can't create the later in FAS since it's already a pseudo user.
We could create the former in dist-git, but it'll break the pattern we've used so far.

Or we go a third way and do erlang-maint-sig?

Sure, I'm not tied to any particular name. As long as there's a group we can use to give Erlang SIG people access to Erlang packages, that'll do for me.

I have created the group in FAS, made it a requirement for its member to be in the packager group and made you the owner for the group.
I have created the erlang-maint-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org and made you an admin for it.
I have created the group in src.fp.o

You need now to:
- Configure the mailing list to be private and moderate messages from bugzilla
- Create a bugzilla account for the mailing list
- Let bugzilla's notifications through
- Edit the group in FAS to set the mailing list address to the mailing list created
- Add maintainer interested to the group in FAS
- Have these people log out and back in in src.fp.o so their group membership can be refreshed

Metadata Update from @pingou:
- Issue priority set to: Waiting on Reporter (was: Waiting on Assignee)

4 years ago

Metadata Update from @pingou:
- Issue assigned to pingou

4 years ago

Going to close and reopen if still a problem

Metadata Update from @smooge:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

4 years ago

@bowlofeggs it looks like this hasn't been done, could you look into it?

You need now to:
- Configure the mailing list to be private and moderate messages from bugzilla
- Create a bugzilla account for the mailing list
- Let bugzilla's notifications through

Metadata Update from @pingou:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

3 years ago

@peter and @jcline since you are also administrator of this FAS group, maybe you could help finishing setting it up?

@fnux looking at datagrepper you were the first one to start using this group in dist-git, so this ticket may interest you.

@fnux looking at datagrepper you were the first one to start using this group in dist-git, so this ticket may interest you.

Sure, but I think I need to be admin of the list for this?

Sure, but I think I need to be admin of the list for this?

Indeed. @bowlofeggs replied to me on IRC, so I've asked what he thinks about making you a list admin

I believe I have set up the list correctly, and I have set up a BZ account to point to it. I'm not 100% sure of two things:

  • Does configuring the list to be "private" mean setting it so it is not listed as one of the lists users can join? I did that, if so. If not, can you clarify?
  • I tried setting bugzilla@redhat.com to be an "acceptable alias". Is that how it can be allowed to post to the list? Also, the form seems to have replaced that address with [u"[u'bugzilla@redhat.com']"], which seems kinda strange to me.

Please reopen if something isn't right, and thanks!

Metadata Update from @bowlofeggs:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

3 years ago

Oh and I also made @fnux a mailing list admin, along with @peter and @jcline.

Does configuring the list to be "private" mean setting it so it is not listed as one of the lists users can join? I did that, if so. If not, can you clarify?

I mean making the archives not publicly accessible. Since the list will be CC'ed on bugzilla ticket which may be private/contain sensitive information, you probably do not want these emails to be accessible publicly.
And indeed, you also likely want to make the list "invite-only" so that not everyone can join it without being approved.

I tried setting bugzilla@redhat.com to be an "acceptable alias". Is that how it can be allowed to post to the list?

I'm not 100% sure on this but this sounds fine

Also, the form seems to have replaced that address with [u"[u'bugzilla@redhat.com']"], which seems kinda strange to me.

agreed, it does feel strange

No, you don't want that there. acceptable aliases are for aliases of the list... like if you had a devel@lists.fedoraproject.org list, but you wanted people to be able to send email to devel@redhat.com and get it accepted.

For bugzilla emails... I am confused how it works now with existing lists. ;(

I would suggest adding 'bugzilla@redhat.com' as a subcriber, set them to nomail (so it doesn't send posts back) and then it should be able to post.
But the existing sig list I looked at doesn't have that, so I am not sure how it's working there.

OK, I have made the archives private, made it so moderators have to approve subscriptions, removed the thing I did with "acceptable aliases", manually subscribed bugzilla, and manually marked bugzilla not to receive messages. I think it's good now. Thanks for the tips!

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata