On 09/26/2019 11:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 11:20 -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 09/26/2019 11:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> We are currently in the "Beta to Pre Release" phase of the release >>> cycle. The updates policy for this phase - >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Beta_to_Pre_Release - >>> says: >>> >>> "From this point onwards maintainers MUST[1]: >>> >>> Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all >>> possible." >>> >>> However, it seems a major new release of LLVM is appearing in F31 at >>> present, and AFAIK there has been no discussion or communication about >>> this at all. >>> >>> LLVM 9 is currently in the buildroot, and an update with a very short >>> description has been submitted: >>> >>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b83bd6b46c >>> >>> (it just says "Update for LLVM 9 rebase.", which is odd since it *is* >>> the LLVM 9 rebase). >>> >>> There is no Change for this, I can't find a mail about it anywhere, >>> it's just been sort of dumped in. Is there enough grounds for dumping >>> in a major new LLVM and violating the update policy at this point in >>> the F31 release? >>> >> >> There are compatibility packages included in the update, so there should not >> be any ABI breakage from this update. Also, what exactly is the main >> issue right now? Is it the buildroot overrides? > > This is what caused me to notice it, yes. Another update got built > against LLVM 9 because it was in the buildroot, which means that update > is now not installable without the LLVM 9 update: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-52ecb9952b > > openQA caught this, which put me onto the change. > Ok, what's the best way to resolve this issue? Do you want me to cancel the update and overrides and re-submit after f31-final is out? -Tom > Having compatibility packages is great, but it doesn't save us if there > turns out to be a problem in LLVM 9 itself. The rule about not doing > major changes after Beta is not really about breaking ABI for existing > packages, it is about the major changes themselves introducing > instability and potentially new bugs at a point in the cycle when we > are *supposed* to be stabilizing towards a final release. > > I'm sure upstream you have a rule that no-one lands a major change to > LLVM shortly before a new release goes out, right? E.g. if you do > release candidates, you wouldn't expect someone to rewrite some large > element between RC1 and RC2. The Fedora update policy is simply > following that principle at the distribution level. > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
