On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 07:21:04 -0500 (EST) Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Taking all of this into account, would this be a reasonable idea? > 1. At Go/No-Go voting time, all updates which block F-N release but > belong to F-M (M<N) release, must be already pushed stable. If this > is not the case and it's the last blocking issue, selected tasks > (like copying compose trees into appropriate places) can be > performed, and Go/No-Go will be rescheduled to the day and time when > it is expected that those updates will have been pushed. I think thats not a great idea. It gets back to why we only slip in one week increments. If say we have a go/no-go on a thursday and the only thing blocking it is some update thats not pushed stable all the way yet, we reschedule for friday and if it's not done then we schedule for saturday? This means everyone has to work extra hours without even being sure when the release will be. Leaves less time to sync mirrors, update common bugs, etc etc. So, the alternative there would be to slip a week to get it pushed, but some people may find that excessive. > 2. We will > create a new mirrormanager script which will go through the specified > metalink(s) and remove all metadata hashes which are older than > provided timestamp/hash. Something like that should be pretty easy to do I would think. (Although I am not a mm developer) > 3. If there are such updates as mentioned in > point 1., RelEng will use this script to remove old metadata > alternatives from the metalink, which means only metadata from the > day this update was pushed or newer will be kept. In order to not > increase mirror strain too much, this doesn't need to be used > immediately, but just shortly before the release announcement (so > that mirrors have time to sync latest packages, and the user load is > distributed among more mirrors including those with current-1 or > current-2 trees as long as possible). 4. Once the script is run in > point 3., we can post the release announcement in 6 hours. > > I know there still one manual step involved (figuring out in which > push the blocker update was included), but I don't know how to better > solve it, especially if we don't want to wait for too long. > > I would be interested in Infra/RelEng feedback for the technical part > of this (CCing Kevin and Dennis). Do you think this is reasonable > solution, or am I completely off the track here? Do you see any > better options? So, looking back, we had the case of that dnf-system-upgrade. Are there any others in the past, or are we making a bigger than life deal out of one case? Also, that case could have been solved by dropping the alternates in metalink as you suggest above at 2 right? One thing that perhaps we could improve is to somehow note these sorts of things to releng. I just checked irc logs and I didn't see any mention of that dnf-system-upgrade plugin update being important until nov 3rd. Would a tracker ticket help this? kevin
Attachment:
pgpNw_GOsoDHz.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
