On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM Paul Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...snip...] > > > The customers RH serves have specific expectations, and in part that > > > dictates how delivery tooling is done. Binding the community to that > > > may be counterproductive. This is especially true now that RHEL 8 Beta > > > is out -- it's the perfect time for us to be rethinking at that level. > > > > Compose tooling is largely shared, delivery tooling is not, though > > there is room for improvement and convergence on both sides. We should > > also consider CentOS and how we can share tooling, process and > > resources, they still use something else entirely. Everything used in > > Fedora is developed in the open and can be contributed to by anyone. > > We have been talking about making the whole process flexible and > > dynamic for years. I know internally they would like to have many of > > the same things Fedora wants. > > Yeah, it sounds like we're aiming in the same direction here. This is > part of what I mean by "decomposing the compose." We have one rather > monolithic process right now, all or nothing. And it does so much that > it's impossible to get any fast results from it. That doesn't mean it > doesn't work well for what it does. But it's not very flexible, as you > pointed out. Actually amusingly if you look back through the history post F-21 and the massive delays that happened due to various non monolithic processes one of the outcomes of the "get a release done with Fedora.next" was to be able to do full composes every day because prior to that we only did newRepo, a network install and live/cloud images and often we'd get to Alpha TC1 right after branching to discover a whole bunch of stuff was completely broken. We finally got this with the move to "pungi 4" in Fedora 24, and in the intervening releases we had huge amounts of complaints because rel-eng couldn't provide all release artifacts to be pushed through CI/CD so regressions could be fixed instantaneously. Yes, I'm aware things change, and I often push them, but it's worth knowing the history how we got to where we are! > With a more flexible compose we could choose to do smaller tasks (as > well as capitalize on other time savings) for something like a > speculative testing build. That kind of build could be used to perform > integration testing as well as other tasks (automated, not manual!). Yes, and in some regards there's already parts of the project doing this, the TWA release runs like this, as does the IoT release and I mentioned above ways to break some of the bits up more. > We could even potentially test against much of the repetitive, > time-consuming matrices manually (and heroically) run by QA. Then only > choose to do more extensive tasks based on that being "green." Completely agree, but there's quite a bit of work to be done to get to that unicorn but none of the process to get there has been documented or even proposed in this thread, it's not easy (believe me a lot of people have looked over the years I've been involved in rel-eng) and most of what I've seen of actual concrete means to get there won't get us anywhere close to that, while yes it will still improve it. Peter _______________________________________________ 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
