On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! > > We currently have a Final release criterion that reads as follows: > > "A spin-kickstarts package which contains the exact kickstart files > used to build the release must be present in the release repository. > The included kickstarts must define the correct set of release > repositories. > > Why? > > This is considered part of Fedora's duty to be 'self-hosting': the > kickstarts used to produce the release images are a vital piece of > information required to duplicate that release, so they must be > preserved along with the release." > > Lately this requirement has been fairly annoying in practice. Updating > the package prior to release does not appear to be in anyone's regular > schedule, so invariably what happens is shortly before the release > deadline I realize we haven't built a 'release' spin-kickstarts package > and have to file a blocker bug and ping people with the necessary > permissions (of which there are only a few) to build one in a tearing > hurry. Then we have to approve the blocker bug and push the updated > package through the freeze, all wasting time we could be spending on > more important fixes. > > The benefit here is really fairly tiny, as well. It's arguable whether > anyone cares particularly whether a Fedora release, as a frozen > artifact, is 100% internally reproducible (and I'm not sure whether our > releases actually *are* reproducible in any case, these days, I'm not > at all sure we ship all the necessary metadata and so on for *every > single deliverable* within the distribution). > > These days I'd suggest it should be quite acceptable to simply use git > tags for this purpose. It should be quite easy for rel-eng to adjust > the release scripts to create a tag in the fedora-kickstarts repo (and > why not fedora-comps too, while we're at it) for each 'candidate' > compose, named for the compose ID. That would make it very easy to > access the correct kickstarts for any Fedora candidate compose just by > a 'git checkout', with no need for the cumbersome work of getting the > package into the compose. > > Naturally this would go along with updates to any relevant docs or wiki > pages, recommending to use the git repository instead of the RPM > packages, and explaining the tagging scheme. As for the package, we > could either keep it but not sweat about updating it for each release, > retire it entirely, or change it to contain only a text file pointing > to the git repository (or to the doc / wiki page that explains the git > repo location and tagging strategy). > > Thoughts? Thanks! So an update on this: as the response has generally been positive I'm planning to go ahead with it, but I think we should make sure the repo tagging thing is done *before* we remove the criterion. So I've filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7568 for that. Once that's resolved I'll go ahead with the criterion removal and docs updates. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/P2VCWJS3NOWTE6W6GQTMM4W3L6USTECG/
