On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:27:28PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I am advocating for mass-rebuild as we do (i.e. to try to build everything) > to be done after stable branch is branched off. For this cycle, the F42 is > going to be branched on Tue 2025-02-04, so some time after that (week, > month, ...), we would do Rawhide mass rebuild. This would serve the > following three purposes: > > 1) Make sure all packages have fcNN+1 (fc43) dist tag. This can reduce user > confusion Sure, but note if we move the mass rebuild to only rawhide after branching, both will have the right dist-tag, but in rawhide it could mean "this built ok 6 months ago" when we next branch. > > 2) Make sure that if there were some changes and the targeted mini mass > rebuild missed some packages for some reason, such changes are really > applied > > 3) Make sure everything builds. In connection with the 1st point, fcNN tag > would make such packages stand out. However, we still have different means > to discover something is FTBFS, so this is not that important. > > All other changes being it GCC or Ruby or sbin or whatever else would be > followed up by targetted mini mass rebuild (possibly only looking to > identify the FTBFS). We do this anyway. "followed up by" meaning in rawhide and in branched both? Or just in branched? > Most of the FTBFS are not critical, most of the possible optimizations are > not critical (they will be applied sooner or later). And we have the > numbers. For F41, there were 568 failed builds at the time of branching [1] > and it did not make any serious troubles in global scale. F42 [2] so far > does not look any better. > > I don't see any benefit doing mass rebuild this late in the cycle. If I am > not mistaken, historically some mass rebuild issues resulted in delayed > Fedora release. And it makes quite hard to adjust the schedule if needed. But likewise I don't see benifit in doing it before changes needing mass rebuild have landed. Also this doesn't work for big global changes like rpm payload changes or global packaging changes. Or at least it delays them 6 months. I don't see what we gain by doing the mass rebuild after branching. All 3 of your points are valid. If the FTBFS isn't critical, you can assign the bug and just wait until you want to fix it? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
