Re: COPR and new chroot naming

[Kevin Kofler]

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If we move back to having a rawhide/devel/master repo the problem
> becomes "which rawhide" ? if you build something in that branch a year
> ago, what are the chances it will still work?

I have packages built in 2007 that still work (in the CalcForge repository).

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: COPR and new chroot naming

[Michal Novotny]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:00:15 +0100
> Michal Novotny  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Vít Ondruch 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I honestly don't understand what is purpose of the f26 vs master.
> > > Why we have empty master currently (speaking of dist-git)? master
> > > should be the same as rawhide, as it is in Fedora.
> > >
> > Yes, I think that makes more sense as well.
> >
> >
> > P.S. Adding devel to the recipient list so that more people can
> > comment.
>
> Well, my thought was this would be a good way to clean out old stale
> projects. ie:
>
> right now we have f26 (rawhide), f25, f24
>
> once we branch f26, projects have f26, f25, f24 and if they like they
> can enable and rebuild for the now existing f27 (rawhide).
>
> When f24 goes eol and is disabled, look at projects that don't have any
> builds anymore and remove them.
>
> repeat each cycle. This means you need to pay attention and rebuild
> your coprs for new branches as they appear, but it also means if you
> don't the old project disappears.
>

That's true but maybe if we make sure the time of the latest build is
communicated
clearly to the user of the copr, it will be enough.


>
> Of course many projects also build for epel, so they would stick around
> for that reason for a long time.
>
> If we move back to having a rawhide/devel/master repo the problem
> becomes "which rawhide" ? if you build something in that branch a year
> ago, what are the chances it will still work?
>
>
Yeah, not very high chances. However, rawhide is still moving so people
probably
do expect the packages there not to have very wide 'it-works' lifespan.

If I consider a use-case of a package developer/maintainer that wants to
prepare
his or her package for next Fedora release, then I think that for those
COPR users
(I met one), rawhide naming is more intuitive and I would like to be good
to them.


> Just my thoughts...
>
>
Thank you, Kevin.


> kevin
>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: COPR and new chroot naming

[Catalin]

Many changes into Fedora area is instability with development and for
attracting
new developers.
I advocate the development of overlapping time periods only reason : the
developers implement the software into many distributions.
That allow to make changes in time.
... a real problem is spam and inconsistent data and information under
Fedora distro.

2017-02-21 18:15 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi :

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:00:15 +0100
> Michal Novotny  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Vít Ondruch 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I honestly don't understand what is purpose of the f26 vs master.
> > > Why we have empty master currently (speaking of dist-git)? master
> > > should be the same as rawhide, as it is in Fedora.
> > >
> > Yes, I think that makes more sense as well.
> >
> >
> > P.S. Adding devel to the recipient list so that more people can
> > comment.
>
> Well, my thought was this would be a good way to clean out old stale
> projects. ie:
>
> right now we have f26 (rawhide), f25, f24
>
> once we branch f26, projects have f26, f25, f24 and if they like they
> can enable and rebuild for the now existing f27 (rawhide).
>
> When f24 goes eol and is disabled, look at projects that don't have any
> builds anymore and remove them.
>
> repeat each cycle. This means you need to pay attention and rebuild
> your coprs for new branches as they appear, but it also means if you
> don't the old project disappears.
>
> Of course many projects also build for epel, so they would stick around
> for that reason for a long time.
>
> If we move back to having a rawhide/devel/master repo the problem
> becomes "which rawhide" ? if you build something in that branch a year
> ago, what are the chances it will still work?
>
> Just my thoughts...
>
> kevin
>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: COPR and new chroot naming

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:00:15 +0100
Michal Novotny  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Vít Ondruch 
> wrote:
> 
> > I honestly don't understand what is purpose of the f26 vs master.
> > Why we have empty master currently (speaking of dist-git)? master
> > should be the same as rawhide, as it is in Fedora.
> >  
> Yes, I think that makes more sense as well.
> 
> 
> P.S. Adding devel to the recipient list so that more people can
> comment.

Well, my thought was this would be a good way to clean out old stale
projects. ie: 

right now we have f26 (rawhide), f25, f24

once we branch f26, projects have f26, f25, f24 and if they like they
can enable and rebuild for the now existing f27 (rawhide). 

When f24 goes eol and is disabled, look at projects that don't have any
builds anymore and remove them. 

repeat each cycle. This means you need to pay attention and rebuild
your coprs for new branches as they appear, but it also means if you
don't the old project disappears. 

Of course many projects also build for epel, so they would stick around
for that reason for a long time. 

If we move back to having a rawhide/devel/master repo the problem
becomes "which rawhide" ? if you build something in that branch a year
ago, what are the chances it will still work? 

Just my thoughts... 

kevin




pgp9pqF7PaMqS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: COPR and new chroot naming

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:00:15 AM CET Michal Novotny wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> 
> > I honestly don't understand what is purpose of the f26 vs master. Why we
> > have empty master currently (speaking of dist-git)? master should be the
> > same as rawhide, as it is in Fedora.
>
> Yes, I think that makes more sense as well.

Well, from copr's _upstream_ POV, I don't think we should hardcode
'master' to Fedora rawhide.  Potential future Copr deployments might try
to avoid support for fedora-rawhide chroots at all.

So it should be (there's a bit related PR#11) configurable on copr's side what
'master' means, and yes -> for Fedora Copr dist-git the 'master' branch should
mean 'rawhide';  as long as Fedora's dist-git uses this pattern.  Or at least we
could drop the 'master' completely to avoid confusion.

Otherwise, +1 for having fedora-rawhide-x86_64 instead of
fedora-27-x86_64.

Thanks for the CC.
Pavel


> 
> P.S. Adding devel to the recipient list so that more people can comment.
> 
> > Vít
> >
> > Dne 21.2.2017 v 10:05 Michal Novotny napsal(a):
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > We have quite recently changed naming of rawhide chroot to fXY in COPR and
> > I would like to know your opinion about it.
> >
> > As branching is behind the door, I tried to consider it again and slightly
> > changed my mind. The main problem with just fXY is that it is probably not
> > very intuitive. "rawhide" tells clearly that rawhide repos are used whereas
> > with just fXY, the repos used for the chroot need to be switched at
> > branching (from rawhide to the fXY ones).
> >
> > We were probably trying to be too fancy here thinking that the follow-up
> > features (all package rebuilding and chroot forking) will complement it
> > well. These features can, however, work with both namings and the "rawhide"
> > chroot just plays much better with mock and how it introduces the new
> > chroot configs.
> >
> > We can go either way but to me the "just-call-it-rawhide" seems to be more
> > simple now while also providing nicer user experience.
> >
> > clime
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > infrastructure mailing list -- infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > infrastructure mailing list -- infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.
> > fedoraproject.org
> >
> >

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: COPR and new chroot naming

[Michal Novotny]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Vít Ondruch  wrote:

> I honestly don't understand what is purpose of the f26 vs master. Why we
> have empty master currently (speaking of dist-git)? master should be the
> same as rawhide, as it is in Fedora.
>
Yes, I think that makes more sense as well.


P.S. Adding devel to the recipient list so that more people can comment.

> Vít
>
> Dne 21.2.2017 v 10:05 Michal Novotny napsal(a):
>
> Hello folks,
>
> We have quite recently changed naming of rawhide chroot to fXY in COPR and
> I would like to know your opinion about it.
>
> As branching is behind the door, I tried to consider it again and slightly
> changed my mind. The main problem with just fXY is that it is probably not
> very intuitive. "rawhide" tells clearly that rawhide repos are used whereas
> with just fXY, the repos used for the chroot need to be switched at
> branching (from rawhide to the fXY ones).
>
> We were probably trying to be too fancy here thinking that the follow-up
> features (all package rebuilding and chroot forking) will complement it
> well. These features can, however, work with both namings and the "rawhide"
> chroot just plays much better with mock and how it introduces the new
> chroot configs.
>
> We can go either way but to me the "just-call-it-rawhide" seems to be more
> simple now while also providing nicer user experience.
>
> clime
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
>
> ___
> infrastructure mailing list -- infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.
> fedoraproject.org
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org