11:35 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com>
To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>, "Alon Bar-Lev"
<alonbl(a)redhat.com>, "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "arch" <arch(a)ovirt.org>, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:59:42 PM
Subject: Re: proposal for moving nightly to 3.4 stabilization branch
Il 16/01/2014 12:51, Itamar Heim ha scritto:
> On 01/16/2014 12:37 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "arch" <arch(a)ovirt.org>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>, "Alon Bar-Lev"
>>> <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:18:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: proposal for moving nightly to 3.4 stabilization branch
>>>
>>> El jue 16 ene 2014 11:15:52 CET, Sandro Bonazzola escribió:
>>>> Il 16/01/2014 11:12, Alon Bar-Lev ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org>, "arch"
<arch(a)ovirt.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:09:46 PM
>>>>>> Subject: proposal for moving nightly to 3.4 stabilization
branch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> since it seems not possible to have both master and 3.4 nightly
>>>>>> builds, I
>>>>>> suggest to move nightly to 3.4 branches.
>>>>>> At this stage nobody really needs master nightly, while 3.4.0
branches
>>>>>> nightly will be more useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiril is working on splitting repo per version, so you have
multiple
>>>>> nightly.
>>>>
>>>> nightly requires 6GB of disk space and we have just 3GB left there.
>>>> We're short on resources for having multiple nightlies right now.
>>>
>>> I correct myself, right now nightly takes ~3GB of space. I can try to
>>> make some space, but if the repo size increases a little we'll run out
>>> f space there.
>>
>> if nobody will test master then we will be in big problem when trying to
>> stabilize it.
>
> agree - we need master tested and we should have nightlies on it as well
We'll need more storage then...
Agree.
Just to understand how much we need and if we can gather it, how many
nightly
has to be taken for allowing rollback?
just latest and previous?
Ignore rollback and just keep latest?
Currently we planned to have nightly for each version:
ovirt-<version>-snapshot - for nightly builds
ovirt-snapshot - master nightly
ovirt-<version> - released version
So we need some more space to handle that. To avoid RPM dups on the filesystem, we can
create
a root directory to save RPMs there and use hardlinks. For example:
Packages-<version> -
|
- rpm1, rpm2 ...
and link rpms from ovirt-<version>-snapshot and ovirt-<version> to
Packages-<version>.
In that way you will avoid dup rpms.
Kiril
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sandro Bonazzola
>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
>>>>>> collaboration.
>>>>>> See how it works at redhat.com
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Arch mailing list
>>>>>> Arch(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Caro
>>>
>>> Red Hat S.L.
>>> Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
>>>
>>> Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
>>> Web: www.redhat.com
>>> RHT Global #: 82-62605
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Arch mailing list
>> Arch(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infra mailing list
> Infra(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--
Sandro Bonazzola
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
_______________________________________________
Infra mailing list
Infra(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra