----- Original Message -----
From: "David Caro" <dcaroest@redhat.com> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@redhat.com> Cc: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo@redhat.com>, "infra" <infra@ovirt.org>, "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril@redhat.com> 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@redhat.com> To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo@redhat.com>, "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@redhat.com>, "infra" <infra@ovirt.org> Cc: "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril@redhat.com> 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? how do I push fix to users for z-stream of packages as otopi, ovirt-host-deploy, log collector and such? why is these components' release cycle should be at same schedule of ovirt-engine which is heavy and slow?
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.
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?
Alon
Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.
-- David Caro
Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Email: dcaro@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@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605