release repo structure and 3.3.2

[David Caro]

El mié 15 ene 2014 19:04:04 CET, Alon Bar-Lev escribió:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Caro" <dcaroest at redhat.com>
>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo at redhat.com>, "infra" <infra at ovirt.org>, "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo at redhat.com>, "Alon Bar-Lev"
>>>> <alonbl at redhat.com>, "infra" <infra at ovirt.org>
>>>> Cc: "Kiril Nesenko" <kiril at 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?
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.

>
>>>
>>> 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 at 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 at 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 at redhat.com
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/infra/attachments/20140116/d34dc97d/attachment.sig>