On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:05:33 +0100 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12. 01. 19 19:47, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 1/12/19 5:59 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 12. 01. 19 14:19, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >>> Dan Horák wrote: > >>>> This is a reminder that this begins this Friday and will > >>>> probably be in place for 4 days. If there are increased > >>>> downtimes, we will update the data when we know it. > >>> > >>> 4 whole DAYS of Koji outage are absolutely unacceptable! > >>> > >>> This just shows how bad an idea it was to add those exotic > >>> secondary architectures to the primary Koji and to make them > >>> blocking for all builds. > >>> We really need to go back to building secondary architectures on > >>> secondary > >>> Koji instances, so that they do not hold the entire Fedora > >>> hostage for days! > >> > >> While I don't necessarily agree with the tone or wording, Kevin > >> has a point here. > > > > I don't agree with the tone, wording or point. :) > > Ah, it seems my e-mail was a little pointless without providing more > thoughts. Sorry about that. > > > When there were secondary arch koji's it took a number of people > > full time to nurse along koji shadow. Often things would land in > > primary, secondary would find a bug later and there would need to > > be a lot of coordination and back and forth before things were > > fixed in both places. > > > > Now all those folks can concentrate on the bugs as they happen in > > primary koji, fix them faster and everyone wins. > > I agree with this. That clearly reduces a lot of work that would > otherwise be carried by a group of alternate arch fighters. Also, the > situation is more easily to read etc. > > No doubt that having everything in one Koji is beneficial. > > > If there were constant outages you might have more of a point, but > > this is the only multi-day one I can think of, it's over a weekend, > > noarch packages can keep building and if there's a security or > > urgent issue we can just Exclude s390x until it's back up. > > It's however not just about outages. What bothers me about s390x is: > > * From time to time there are situations where the build waits for > a s390x builder. as they wait for other arch builders too > * Upstreams don't have access to a s390x CI service and are often > unable to debug s390x problems without (very slow) virtualization. we are aware of the problem, for all non-x86 arches, but there is no simple solution > * With ppc64 removal, s390x is the only Big Endian arch in the pool > (while ppc64 was easier to get to via CentOS CI). > > I just think that we are burning a lot of resources without a clear > visible benefit. Don't get me wrong, I am no architectures expert and > I don't intent to pretend I am. It's just that all the s390x bugs > I've seen for packages I happen to help taking care of are from other > Fedora maintainers who fight FTBFS for their own packages etc., never > from any actual users. > > s390x just feels to me like "that weird thing that often breaks and > nobody really cares about". I realize this view is very narrow and is > mostly based on feelings rather than facts, however it just how it > feels. > > Hence I consider it unfortunate that s390x can block the whole > distro, even if it's just for a couple days. is it really such a big problem, during a weekend? > I'm not saying all this to start a flame or to blame one poor > architecture, I'd genuinely love to know the answers to: > > * Where can upstreams get a nice CI as a service for s390x? [1] nowhere yet, but how it is different from other non-x86 arches? Upstream can run their CI on our infrastructure, a number of them already does. BTW is there any open-source "CI as a service" software that could be just deployed (on any arch)? > * What are the users of Linux on z and what packages/apps/tools are > they interested about? Do they run desktop environments, should I > e.g. bother fixing a bug in a desktop GUI application that controls a > 3D printer? Or is it just OK to Exclude s390x on such apps? etc. they probably won't control 3D printers, but the overall goal is to make s390x looks as any other arch, thus we have for example virtio-gpu, so for a user there won't be a difference when running their desktop environment. In general having an heterogeneous environment is useful because it increases the overall quality pointing to buggy user code, toolchain bugs, etc. > * Where do we actually gain users of Fedora/s390x? When I search > for Linux s309x, I get to our Wiki (after several Ubuntu and IBM > links) [2], but that page is probably not very user targeted and > seems a bit outdated. The users are primarily interested in the enterprise products for s390x, but they are well aware that Fedora shows them what will appear in the next version of enterprise products. Or they simply need to run newer stuff than enterprise version provide. And yes, our wiki would appreciate more love :-) Dan > [1] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/5FH2DUYXQEOJQZPDA7KSHVBRANKXV3X2/ > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/s390x > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
