Re: release repo structure and 3.3.2

From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:35:16 AM Subject: Re: release repo structure and 3.3.2 El jue 16 ene 2014 01:04:33 CET, Alon Bar-Lev escribió: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, >> "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:58:08 AM >> Subject: Re: release repo structure and 3.3.2 >> >> El mié 15 ene 2014 19:04:04 CET, Alon Bar-Lev escribió: >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt;, >>>> "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:47:59 PM >>>> Subject: Re: release repo structure and 3.3.2 >>>> >>>> El mié 15 ene 2014 16:30:00 CET, Alon Bar-Lev escribió: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Alon Bar-Lev" >>>>>> <alonbl(a)redhat.com&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; >>>>>> Cc: "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:26:32 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: release repo structure and 3.3.2 >>>>>> >>>>>> El 07/01/14 15:31, Sandro Bonazzola escribió: >>>>>>> Il 01/01/2014 10:42, Alon Bar-Lev ha scritto: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For some reason there 3.3.2 z-stream was released in its own >>>>>>>> repository >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> people that are subscribed to stable[1] did not get it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not? >>>>>>> stable release had ovirt-release-10 which enabled both stable and >>>>>>> 3.3.2 >>>>>>> repository by yum updating it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no much sense in releasing fix release that people do not >>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> simple "yum update". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also the following is now broken of most packages' spec: >>>>>>>> Source0: >>>>>>>> http://ovirt.org/releases/stable/src/@PACKAGE_NAME@-@PACKAGE_VERSION@.tar.gz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For each minor we should have rolling repository, to reduce noise >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> provide service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All released tarballs (sources) should be stored at fixed location >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> allow distro specific code to fetch, the location must be synced >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> what we publish. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Immediate action is to move the 3.3.2 content into the stable >>>>>>>> directory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So previous request of having each release in its own repository has >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> retired? >>>>>>> Or is it combined? >>>>>>> Do we want stable to be a rolling repository and have also a >>>>>>> repository >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> each version? >>>>>>> I'm not against having rolling packages in just one stable >>>>>>> repository, >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> just want to understand what is the desired structure of the >>>>>>> repositories. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am, having a stable repository with rolling rpms is a lot more hard >>>>>> to >>>>>> manage >>>>>> and maintain than having separated individual complete repos. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because what we are actually delivering is not a specific rpm, but the >>>>>> whole >>>>>> set, that is, one repository with the set of rpms that were tested >>>>>> together >>>>>> and >>>>>> validated. If at any point you want to mix them, you still can adding >>>>>> the >>>>>> other >>>>>> repos. >>>>>> >>>>>> For updates just updating the directory where the 'stable' link points >>>>>> gets >>>>>> it done. >>>>>> >>>>>> For rollbacks you'll have to configure the old repo. That is not as >>>>>> annoying >>>>>> as >>>>>> it might seem, because when you enable the stable repo, you want to >>>>>> have >>>>>> the >>>>>> stable version, that changes with time. If you want to rollback to a >>>>>> previous >>>>>> version then just use that versions specific repo. At much we can >>>>>> provide >>>>>> a >>>>>> link >>>>>> like 'previous_stable' so if you want to rollback to the previous >>>>>> version >>>>>> you >>>>>> can use --enablerepo=previous_version easily, but if you want to keep >>>>>> using >>>>>> that, you should point directly to the specific version you want tot >>>>>> use. >>>>>> >>>>>> Creating a new repository using is almost as cheap (on hard disk >>>>>> space) >>>>>> as >>>>>> having a rolling repository, if you use hard links, so we can create >>>>>> lot's >>>>>> of >>>>>> them, specially for small changes from one to another. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only drawback that I see is when you have to release a minor >>>>>> change >>>>>> in >>>>>> one >>>>>> the the rpms, for example, to fix a critical bug, the repo will not >>>>>> include >>>>>> the >>>>>> old package, but I'm not sure if that's really a drawback... if you >>>>>> really >>>>>> need >>>>>> that package without the critical fix (you should not) you can have it >>>>>> changing >>>>>> to that specific repository. The internal naming of the repos does not >>>>>> really >>>>>> matter, having to point to the repo 3.3.3-beta.2 to get the second >>>>>> 'respin' >>>>>> of >>>>>> the 3.3.3 beta repo is not a big issue I think. >>>>>> >>>>>> The advantages are many, the most importants I see: >>>>>> - Easy management: >>>>>> * no need to go version hunting in the repo to remove/add rpms >>>>>> * you should never get a repo with version combinations that are >>>>>> not >>>>>> tested >>>>>> * it's a lot easier to get rid of old repos, and to move them >>>>>> around >>>>>> as >>>>>> they >>>>>> are independent >>>>>> * no broken links, right now stable repo is full of links to other >>>>>> repos, >>>>>> so >>>>>> removing those repos leave the links broken, you have to go >>>>>> checking >>>>>> if >>>>>> someone links to them (or their internal directories) if you have >>>>>> to >>>>>> clean >>>>>> up old versions >>>>>> - Testing, it's a lot easier to reproduce any error found, as you can >>>>>> just use the same repo and you'll get the same version set. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> And you do not allow quick fix of issues found in various of packages. >>>> Why not? You can create a new repo based in the previous one that >>>> includes the fixed packages. It's cheap! >>> >>> who is you? >> In this case you is the person/process/chimpanzee that is in charge of >> publishing the fixed packages to the correct environment >> >>> how do I push fix to users for z-stream of packages as otopi, >>> ovirt-host-deploy, log collector and such? >> Exactly the same way you do it for engine or vdsm >> >>> why is these components' release cycle should be at same schedule of >>> ovirt-engine which is heavy and slow? >> It should not. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Although there is /some/ sense in syncing minor releases, I do not see >>>>> any >>>>> reason of syncing z-stream. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I think that you do not trust individual maintainer to provide >>>>> z-streams. >>>>> >>>>> A change in z-stream should not be exposed (unless is fixing) an >>>>> external >>>>> interface. >>>> >>>> I don't think it should be hidden neither, just make clear that those >>>> are not builds to be used widely, maybe just putting it under another >>>> directory (not releases). Where only promoted repos can go (meaning, >>>> not everyone can put repos there). >>>> For example: >>>> repos/releases -> for repos that have been tested and we want to publish >>>> repos/testing -> for any temporary generated repo, that is not fully >>>> tested and not ready for be used widely >>>> >>> >>> why not released? only because engine is slow? I do not understand. >> I don't even understand your question. We got lost at some point. I'll >> try to explain a little more what I said before, maybe that will >> clarify the issue to you. >> You said that a change in z-stream should not be exposed, for that I >> understand for that that a package that is meant to go to a z-stream >> should not be exposed to the general public. I think that it should, >> but it must be clear to the public that it's not yet ready (I suppose >> that's the reason you don't want it public), so they use it at their >> own risk. And separating the repos into two seems a good wat for making >> that clear (another one is adding a suffix to the repo name for >> example). >> >>> >>>> That way you make sure that if anyone is using a repo that is not fully >>>> tested, is because he wants to, but you don't forbid it. >>> >>> why do you think that someone is releasing untested packages? >> I do not think that someone is releasing untested packages. That >> sentence comes from the hypothetical situation where a repository that >> is not meant to be used by the general public (I said untested, but it >> could be for any other reason) is made public using a different url >> than the repos that are meant to be widely used. >> >> Part of the advantages of that system is the ease to run tests on >> specific version sets (repos). That we do not do right now (at least >> *upstream*) but I think would be done in the near future. > > I will try to explain again. > > There is no actual relationship between packages, these could have been > provided asynchronous by multiple sources and maintainers regardless of > the ovrit project, just like libvirt or sanlock or any other 10000 > dependencies we have outside of the scope of the project. That's not true, the relation is that they are provided by the same repository and that they are maintained by the same community. Yes, they could have been provided by multiple sources and maintainers, but they were not. > Trying to control the release cycle only because we have two fat components > is something that should be avoided. The model I exposed does not care if you create a new repository each hour changing just one package or you create the repository on time a year. What it's true is that it will be recreated when ANY (one or more) of the packages included changes. > > So far we have successfully released packages async with no regressions nor > issues, and quickly solved user issues. There is absolutely no reason to > stop this offering. Yes, that in the last weeks sandro and me (mostly me) spent more than two days trying to create a couple releases with the old process. It's hard to maintain and I personally prefer focusing on another tasks than searching rpm versions and trying to figure out what can be deleted/moved and what can't. A proved way to improve things is to change them, try new ways, if you do not change you are waiting for the environment to do so, and that's usually really hard to achieve. Nothing suggests that adopting the process that I explained will affect the user experience substantially (if think otherwise, please elaborate). > >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Alon >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Alon Bar-Lev. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/stable/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> -- 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