moving to Koji
fedora at leemhuis.info
Wed Feb 25 19:11:23 UTC 2009
On 25.02.2009 18:21, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 25.02.2009 16:12, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> To move building to koji we need to get bodhi setup and redo the
>>> release engineering process to closely match that of Fedora. What this
>>> means is that you will need to file a ticket with releng to have a
>>> package added to the buildroot if you need to build against it. it
>>> also means that things can hit stable sooner.
>> Ehh, do we really want that apart from security updates or important
>> bugfixes (which we can and do push within minutes these days already if
>> I ask because the "monthly" move from testing to the porper repos has a
>> important side-effect: I slows everything down when compared to the
>> quickly moving Fedora, which for EL repos IMHO is something good.
> I think this would still be possible with bodhi by having the
> epel_signers push to testing frequently but push to stable on a monthly
> basis. Have to ask releng/lmacken to be sure, though.
Luke, can you clarify? And if above works: can one push selected
packages (security updates and those that fix other serious bugs) at any
time while leaving the other, regular updates for the next monthly move?
BTW, does the EPEL Steering Committee actually care about that or are
they fine with a steady update stream instead of monthly pushes?
> If that does work it gives packagers the ability to leave things in the
> testing repo without having to explicitly tell people not to move it
> everytime a new push to stable is being prepared. Not sure if that
> would be "abused" though....
Yeah, it could make the whole testing repo completely useless if
packagers push experimental updates to the testing repo with the
intention to never move them to the stable repos :-/
> likely there would need to be guidance on
> whether it's proper usage of the testing repo to leave a package in
> there forever.
Yeah, we need to put a rule in place here afaics. A time limit maybe?
Could the steering committee maybe put that onto its todo list?
BTW, does the EPEL Steering Committee still exist/meet at all?
More information about the epel-devel-list