On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Patrick Creech <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 11:35 -0500, Jeremy Audet wrote: > > > > Hosting packages in just one place is simpler than hosting packages > in multiple places. > > > > There's > > > > less room for error when the simpler thing is done. > > > > > > > > > > It shouldn't be too hard to set up. > > > > > > Fair enough. I also think that hosting packages on one location helps to > prevent end-user > > confusion. But we can host packages wherever is appropriate, and I don't > have a terribly strong > > opinion here. > > I'm already working on having the repo on koji generated in such a way > that it rsyncs nicely over to > the destination at fedorapeople with little effort. > > > > I would probably want to keep it in a 'nightly' or 'master' > > > folder instead of a versioned folder, to help aign the intent of > explicitly distinguishing this > > > workflow from others. Thoughts? > > > > Yes, please. If there's a directory called "2.15," then I think that > there's a 2.15 release. If > > there's a directory called "nightly" or "master," then I think that > there are nightly builds, or > > builds from master. > > > > To nitpick: I like the idea "master" a little bit more. What if we > improved our development and > > build processes so that there were two builds in a day? "master" > reflects the idea that the builds > > come from the master branch, whereas "nightly" reflects the idea that > there's one build per day. > > I too like 'master' over 'nightly'. +1 to using this term instead for > what we consider the > 'nightly' process. (as we do, on frequent occasion, rebuild these > packages before the next 'night' > is to be ran to help with many things) I have changed this on the Jenkins UI. https://pulp-jenkins.rhev-ci-vms.eng.rdu2.redhat.com/view/Pulp%202%20-Master/
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
