Repo layout. We really need to make the call by Tuesday 2012/7/24.
The current repo layout will have to change some to support the 3.1 release that might be happening on the 25th. We are going to have to move stuff around to archive the 3.0 release as well as setup the 3.1 release in my option we can do it one of two ways. 1) Create an archive folder and just copy 3.0 to it well we do the 3.1 release and keep the same structure we have now. 2) Redo the layout to something that will long term support version and be less confusing to people using the project. Personally I think this is a good time to redesign. The existing 3.0 repo files are going to break when we move things around for the 3.1 release and we are going to need to make sure everything is in place. Since we are going to have to disrupt thing already why not do a full clean-up instead of just patch the current layout. Our current layout. release/[stable|beta|nightly]/[binary|fedora|RHEL|src]/[16|17|18] I recommend we switching to the following structure. release/[3.0|3.1|3.2|stable|testing]/[nightly|beta|released]/[tools|fedora|RHEL|src]/[16|17|18|rawhide] With symlinks for stable and testing point to the current version for each. I also suggest a symlink called release/fedora-ovirt-latest.rpm that points to the latest ovirt-release-*.rpm file. Inside each version there will be a repo file that enables released disables beta & nightly. Since each repo file will simple reference everything by version number each new release wont break old releases. What does everyone think? Thanks Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Middleswarth" <robert@middleswarth.net> To: "infra" <infra@ovirt.org> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:50:02 PM Subject: Repo layout. We really need to make the call by Tuesday 2012/7/24.
The current repo layout will have to change some to support the 3.1 release that might be happening on the 25th. We are going to have to move stuff around to archive the 3.0 release as well as setup the 3.1 release in my option we can do it one of two ways. 1) Create an archive folder and just copy 3.0 to it well we do the 3.1 release and keep the same structure we have now. 2) Redo the layout to something that will long term support version and be less confusing to people using the project.
Personally I think this is a good time to redesign. The existing 3.0 repo files are going to break when we move things around for the 3.1 release and we are going to need to make sure everything is in place. Since we are going to have to disrupt thing already why not do a full clean-up instead of just patch the current layout. Our current layout.
release/[stable|beta|nightly]/[binary|fedora|RHEL|src]/[16|17|18]
I recommend we switching to the following structure.
release/[3.0|3.1|3.2|stable|testing]/[nightly|beta|released]/[tools|fedora|RHEL|src]/[16|17|18|rawhide]
i don't see the reason for 'stable|testing' dir in the version section. i recommend: release/$VERSION/$RELEASE-STATE/$OS/$OS_VER/$TYPE $VERSION = 3.0,3.1,3.X $RELEASE-STATE = released/beta/nightly $OS = Fedora, RHEL, Ubunto, RHEVH $OS_VERSION = 16,17,6.2,6,3 $TYPE = binary, src, tools examples -> this is where jenkins will deploy nightly rpms: release/3.1/nightly/fedora/17/[src | binary | tools] i imagine that we'll deploy beta/release version manually when needed.
With symlinks for stable and testing point to the current version for each. I also suggest a symlink called release/fedora-ovirt-latest.rpm that points to the latest ovirt-release-*.rpm file.
not sure why this is needed and how we will update these sym links all the time ( manually ?) people should know that d/l rpms from the 'stable' directory will give them stable release, question is if we put more than one version or nighties in the unstable dir, or just the latest.. if we're keeping versions back then: 1. how many 2. need a cleaner to delete old version 3. keeping all version in a single yum repo is common practise?
Inside each version there will be a repo file that enables released disables beta & nightly.
Since each repo file will simple reference everything by version number each new release wont break old releases.
What does everyone think?
Thanks Robert _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
On 07/23/2012 01:54 AM, Eyal Edri wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Middleswarth" <robert@middleswarth.net> To: "infra" <infra@ovirt.org> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:50:02 PM Subject: Repo layout. We really need to make the call by Tuesday 2012/7/24.
The current repo layout will have to change some to support the 3.1 release that might be happening on the 25th. We are going to have to move stuff around to archive the 3.0 release as well as setup the 3.1 release in my option we can do it one of two ways. 1) Create an archive folder and just copy 3.0 to it well we do the 3.1 release and keep the same structure we have now. 2) Redo the layout to something that will long term support version and be less confusing to people using the project.
Personally I think this is a good time to redesign. The existing 3.0 repo files are going to break when we move things around for the 3.1 release and we are going to need to make sure everything is in place. Since we are going to have to disrupt thing already why not do a full clean-up instead of just patch the current layout. Our current layout.
release/[stable|beta|nightly]/[binary|fedora|RHEL|src]/[16|17|18]
I recommend we switching to the following structure.
release/[3.0|3.1|3.2|stable|testing]/[nightly|beta|released]/[tools|fedora|RHEL|src]/[16|17|18|rawhide]
i don't see the reason for 'stable|testing' dir in the version section.
They would just be convent links to the current release and testing releases. Right now stable would point at 3.0 and testing would point at 3.1. Assuming 3.1 gets released on the 25th then the links would be updated so stable would point at 3.1 and testing would point at 3.2
i recommend:
release/$VERSION/$RELEASE-STATE/$OS/$OS_VER/$TYPE
$VERSION = 3.0,3.1,3.X $RELEASE-STATE = released/beta/nightly $OS = Fedora, RHEL, Ubunto, RHEVH $OS_VERSION = 16,17,6.2,6,3 $TYPE = binary, src, tools
Agree with the structure. Pretty much what I was recommending.
examples -> this is where jenkins will deploy nightly rpms: release/3.1/nightly/fedora/17/[src | binary | tools]
My with the engine branched nightly should be called 3.2 not 3.1 since they are master. Although in theory would could have a folder called master and one for each release?
i imagine that we'll deploy beta/release version manually when needed. I would actually prefer that we get the beta and release processes into Jenkins and have Jenkins handle the beta and release builds it will make it easier to push out releases without someone from the infra team required to make anything happen.
With symlinks for stable and testing point to the current version for each. I also suggest a symlink called release/fedora-ovirt-latest.rpm that points to the latest ovirt-release-*.rpm file.
The idea is to create one place the documentation can link to that will update over time without having to update the documentation. not sure why this is needed and how we will update these sym links all the time ( manually ?) people should know that d/l rpms from the 'stable' directory will give them stable release, question is if we put more than one version or nighties in the unstable dir, or just the latest.. if we're keeping versions back then:
1. how many I was thinking a few days worth. Sometime it helps to keep a few days worth in case something goes wrong with the create repo. 2. need a cleaner to delete old version Yes. We need a way to clean up old builds. 3. keeping all version in a single yum repo is common practise? ? All Versions of oVirt? Or all OS versions?
Inside each version there will be a repo file that enables released disables beta & nightly.
Since each repo file will simple reference everything by version number each new release wont break old releases.
What does everyone think?
Thanks Robert _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
participants (2)
-
Eyal Edri -
Robert Middleswarth