On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 04:32:25PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote: > > > > In Legacy we use the bugzilla number as the update ID. I'm not entirely > > sure how Fedora does it. I think it may come from the update tool, and > > if/when we move the update tool to be external and work for all Fedora > > stuff then it would be easy to have uniques. > > > > I was thinking about this just the other day. There are two things that > could work I think. The first is to use the bugzilla ID. This has the > advantage of being unique and easy, but has the disadvantage of being a > seemingly random number. What about multiple bugs per update ? > The second idea is how we did Core updates long long ago (well sort of). The way Core updates were done long ago was a problem, and it has been fixed via the update system. > We put a file in our cvs repository that looks a bit like this > > 2006-001 > 2006-002 > 2006-003 > <see if you can figure out what's next> > > We then take one > > 2006-001 some package > > and commit the file. It's important we remember to commit the file lest > someone else steal it. It prevents concurrency issues as only one person > can commit at a time. > > Ideally I think it would be best to have a directory layout as such > > advisories/ > ids > text/ > 2006-001 > > We could then write a script that we run with a package name. It then > modifies the ids file, adds a new skeleton file in text/ then runs > cvs commit -m 'Create errata 2006-001' > > Once we're happy with the errata text (multiple people can read/modify it), > we run another command that magically mails it to the list in question, and > makes a note in the ids file that it's been "pushed" along with the date. > This would allow us to work on advisories before the packages are ready. > > We could also then generate a sort of advisory index page for the project > so when we find some web space somewhere, publishing our advisories is > trivial. > > If we ensure we note the bugs fixed in our errata it will also be possible > to close the bugs automagically via our script. The current update system already automatically generates and sends advisory text, as well as automatic bug commenting/closing. > Thoughts? Seeing as how getting the update system out from under it's rock is getting to be a pretty large priority, I'd hate to have us duplicate this functionality for Extras/Legacy/Core. Ideally, it would be nice to have a single system which can be used to push core/extras/legacy updates and give us the ability to generate project-wide statistics, and automate mailing list and bugzilla interaction. I jotted down some notes[0] a while back on making the current update system more modular to be able to extend legacy and extras, but due to classes/finals have been unable to implement it. Thoughts? luke [0]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdateSystem
