On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Michael K. Johnson <johns...@danlj.org
<mailto:johns...@danlj.org>> wrote:

    One of the design goals in Conary's "promote" process is to rewrite
    all trove references as if they existed on the target label, where
    that makes sense, in order to avoid references that expose the
    development process. Â This was really designed for a small number
    of packages and proprietary OEM processes. Â It's not particularly
    valuable for Foresight.

    With system model, since packages are found via groups, it really
    doesn't matter much where the packages live.

    I'd like to propose that in FL3, we have separate labels for groups
    and packages. Â When we promote groups, it will be quick because we
    will be promoting only the groups, not the packages. Â So what is
    right now a process that takes an hour or more (potentially delaying
    security updates and bug fixes), should take minutes at most.

    If we don't promote packages at all, what we would lose is the easy
    ability to rebuild packages on intermediary stages; for example,
    doing a quick security update on an older revision off the QA
    branch when development has moved on but isn't ready to release.

    There is a hybrid model, in which we also use separate labels
    for packages and groups, and we do promote packages when moving
    from Development to QA, but we do not when moving packages from QA
    to release. Â This would make promotes from Development to QA take
    on the order of an hour (as they do now) but allow quick releases
    of security updates from the QA stage if necessary.

    Concrete example:

    Groups built on @fl:3-devel, promoted to @fl:3-qa, promote to @fl:3

    Packages built on @fl:3p-devel and promoted to @fl:3p when groups
    are promoted from @fl:3-devel to @fl:3-qa, and not promoted at all
    when groups are promoted from @fl:3-qa to @fl:3

    We can rebuild packages on @fl:3p against @fl:3-qa or @fl:3 groups,
    and groups on @fl:3-qa, if we need to get an urgent security or
    critical bug fix out in minutes.

    Thoughts?


the hybrid model makes absolute perfect sense to me.


António Meireles
--
Lead Developer, The Foresight Linux Project
http://www.foresightlinux.org <http://www.foresightlinux.org/>




_______________________________________________
Foresight-devel mailing list
Foresight-devel@lists.rpath.org
http://lists.rpath.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel

Reply via email to