|
Thanks for starting this discussion and I really want to thank
you for offering Bodhi to handle the Rawhide. It would be really
sad I some other system was used for Rawhide then for stable
versions. Dne 9.3.2018 v 10:20 Pierre-Yves Chibon
napsal(a):
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 01:00:32PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:I would like to kick off a general discussion about how we might gate packages in Rawhide. I think it would be nice to get something in place for the Fedora 29 timeframe.I was waiting to have some more time to work on it to kick off that discussion. This is cool as it means there are more people interested in having this :)As one of the Bodhi contributors, I am inclined to suggest that we could use Bodhi on Rawhide, similar to how we use it for our stable/branched releases, with more relaxed rules (perhaps 1 day in testing or something simple). It may be possible to automate the process a bit to make it less heavy for developers, though there is some complication for multi-package updates (more on that in a bit). For simple package updates, we may be able to detect new commits on dist-git, and react to those by automatically starting a Koji build, and automatically filing a Bodhi update when that build is complete. I think that would be pretty nice, and pingou created a PoC[0] to do this about a year ago. Multi-package updates won't be so easy though. It's not uncommon for us to need to update packages together, and the above workflow would be problematic since it would result in updates with single packages in them rather than updates with multiple packages. Of course, buildroot overrides would be a problem too, since multi-package updates often depend on each other at build time too. We could create some way for packagers to indicate that a commit (or possibly even a whole repo) is not intended to be "autobuilt/updated". If the packager indicates this then their builds would go into a rawhide-pending (similar to what we do for f27 today). Once they have all their builds (and buildroot overrides) the way they want them, they can create the update. Another idea that was tossed around in some chats I had with people about this involved a system for packagers to use to create Koji side tags. Bodhi manages BuildRoot Overrides today (with expirations), so perhaps Bodhi could be expanded to also manage Koji side tags (also with expirations). I can't remember all the details about this approach or why it was suggested over the former approach, but I wanted to list it to invite others to chew on it and see if it could work. If you have other suggestions on how we might gate packages in Rawhide that are wildly different than the above, please feel free to share! I more or less like your proposal. But I have to highlight one danger of sidetags and that is you have use the "--target" option. If you forget it by accident (and it is quite easy to forget), you will unintentionally mess the main Rawhide repository. From this POV is much safer to use build overrides. Also, using buildroot overrides is probably more infrastructure resources friendly. BTW the buildroot overrides could be submitted automatically by "fedpkg build", with possible opt-in/out (depends what will qualify to be better default). Also, using side-tags without appropriate branches is wasted opportunity. If I could have "master-mysidetag" branch, I would use to build my packages and side-tag merge would mean to merge dist-git as well as the repository, it would be even more meaningful. For this to work we could need: - one new koji tag on rawhide (easy) - support for side-tags in bodhi - likely improving the side-tags generation in koji - a few services, likely fedmsg-based, to link the different services (tests results to src.fp.o/bodhi, migrate package to the next koji tag when test results is published, when a waiver is submitted push the package to the next koji tag...) The idea to automatically build upon commit is neat and something we can look into, but I think it can be approached separately from gating rawhide, one doesn't require the other. I really don't like the idea of building something based on commit. Each commit should be atomic and meaningful. If you will build based on commit, that could motivate maintainers to put more unrelated changes into single commit. And of course, you should be speaking rather about "build unpon push", since push can contain more commits. V. Speaking of both changes in one go might confuse things a little. Pierre |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
