On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 08:37:03AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20 2021 at 07:29:16 AM -0400, Neal Gompa
<ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Most of our rules are designed to make sure there's someone ultimately
>responsible for everything going into Fedora. Unfortunately, bots are
>the opposite of that, because there's no one to reach to stop bad
>behavior when it happens.
Hm, this seems pretty simple to solve though, right? Allow bots to
submit updates on behalf of packagers, but not with their own bot
FAS accounts.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
A human *is* responsible and known. When a bot account is given
permission, we make sure that there's a known human behind the account.
Things are no other in this particular case, see the original ticket [1].
Actually, if the bot were using their human's account, things would be *less*
transparent. By using a separate account, we are making it clear that
this update stream is made by this particular bot (as opposed to e.g.
some human occasionally using a script to release some updates).
[1]
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2228
This would be like how GNOME package updates currently
work, where a bot does the hard work but a human is ultimately
responsible (and subscribed to each bodhi update, so feedback will
at least not be completely missed).
The line can be a big hazy, but I'd say that if:
- a human is just using a script or even a some program to fire off
the update — this particular person's account must be used.
- some bot prepares the update, but a human still need to make the final
step and may or may not publish the update: probably better to do it
using this person's account.
- the bot is set up once and then keeps releasing updating until stopped,
and may be managed by multiple people — a separate bot account is preferable.
Zbyszek