On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 1:03 PM James Perkins <jperkins(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 9:26 AM Brian Stansberry <
brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 5:54 PM James Perkins <jperkins(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Since I've been one that keeps talking about this, it seems I should
>> reply here as well :)
>>
>> In general we could, and really probably should, start with a known set
>> of dependencies to upgrade. Otherwise we'll probably see A LOT of
>> dependency upgrade PR's.
>>
>
> Can we start by just doing this in dependabot.yml:
>
> ignore:
> - dependency-name: "*"
> update-types: ["version-update:semver-major",
> "version-update:semver-minor"]
>
We could, yes. We will likely have a lot of upgrades come in that way.
This might be okay, but my initial thought was to list specific
dependencies we know to be upgradeable without a JIRA. I'm definitely up
for being aggressive if we want though :)
I'll confess to being too lazy to try and figure out which deps to allow. :)
>
> So we limit things to just the micros.
>
> Dependabot will only produce 5 open PRs at a time, unless we specify a
> different number via dependabot.yml.* So we can process 5 at a time and
> even quickly close ones that will require more thought than we want to
> spend at that time. The dependency update report that's sent to this list
> every week will prevent any we ignore or close from falling into a crack.
>
>
> * Perhaps we should start with a smaller max number and increase it every
> day or so until we get to whatever our long-term target is. IOW, avoid an
> initial CI-hogging flood.
>
The CI concerns are definitely valid. I hadn't considered that.
I don't think it's *that* big a deal if our long term target is fairly
small. Like if we turned it on on a Friday afternoon not near any tagging
deadline probably no one would even notice the load.
We need to be careful about rebase-strategy though. Having say 5 PRs
continually rebasing and kicking off CI every time we merge would be bad.
Probably we should turn it off and use the pull player /retest when we want
a retest, same as we do with human-created PRs.
https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-up...
>
>
>
>> One thing to note too is that dependabot will create a branch in the
>> repository. Anyone doing a fetch locally will get this new branch. Not
>> really a huge deal, but something to keep in mind. Locally you might want
>> to run git remote prune <your_remote> a little more often if you like to
>> keep things clean :)
>>
>
> Thanks for the tip!
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:33 AM Brian Stansberry <
>> brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Occasionally we've thought about turning on dependabot for the main
>>> WildFly repo, and a couple current discussions (see [1] and [2]) relate to
>>> that, so it seems a good time to discuss further and perhaps take action.
>>>
>>> My main concern with dependabot is it doesn't integrate with JIRA. JIRA
>>> is really important to how we're able to keep a handle on a project as
>>> complex as WildFly. And I think it's important to track component
upgrades
>>> in JIRA so our users can keep an eye on what we're providing.
Particularly
>>> important in the world of ubiquitous CVE scanners.
>>>
>>> But James Perkins has pointed out that such JIRA tracking is kind of
>>> overkill for non-production dependencies (e.g. test and build deps) and I
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> So, how about we turn on dependabot and require a JIRA to be filed and
>>> linked to the PR if the proposed upgrade is production code dep? For
>>> non-production deps a JIRA would be optional.
>>>
>>> The other thing I care about a lot is being able to grep the git log
>>> for commits related to a JIRA. That would of course be lost for
>>> non-production upgrades with no JIRA. Oh well. Also though dependabot
>>> wouldn't put our JIRA in its commit messages. But for PRs where we file
a
>>> JIRA we can require human edit of the dependabot PR title to reference the
>>> JIRA. That will result in the JIRA appearing in the log via the merge
>>> commit Github generates. That solves the git log use case adequately enough
>>> IMO.
>>>
>>
>> TBH I only grep for JIRA's if I have the JIRA I'm trying to find the
>> commit for. Short of that, I pretty much just use git blame on the file to
>> find out which commit changed a line. But everyone has their own workflow
>> and I don't want to push mine on anyone :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/thread/...
>>> [2]
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/thread/...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> Privacy Statement:
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
>>> List Archives:
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message...
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James R. Perkins
>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
> He/Him/His
>
--
James R. Perkins
JBoss by Red Hat
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
He/Him/His