[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [scl.org] Minutes from CentOS SCLo SIG sync-up meeting on #centos-devel (2016-01-13)

On 01/14/2016 07:35 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Honza Horak <hhorak redhat com> wrote:
#topic review of how development of new scls is working
   rought proposal: building packages -> candidate -> sanity testing ->
testing -> [wait till rhscl is released] -> tag released -> sign&release
   - usual tagging process: tag -candidate -> [sanity testing] -> tag
-testing -> [better testing] -> tag -released -> sign&release
   - how it will be done for collections that gonna be released in RHSCL in
the future?
   - idea: such collections should stay in -testing until they are released
in RHSCL -- bad idea? shout now.

What's the scope of discussion here in terms of "sclo-*" SCLs and "rh-*" SCLs?

For "sclo-*" SCLs, I'd expect the RHSCL release cycle to be entirely irrelevant.

Yes, they may be theoretically influence in cases the sclo-* SCLs depend on some rh-* SCLs -- in that case their release is depended on RHSCL.

For "rh-*" SCLs, having them remain in -testing until the downstream
release (so they become generally available to RHEL & CentOS users at
the same time) seems reasonable.

So if someone wanted to take an existing rh-* package and turn it into
an sclo-* package that could be updated independently of the RHSCL
release cycle, they'd be free to do that.

Yes, in case someone would like to include different set of packages or deliver different version, then it effectively become a new SCL, that needs to be treated that way.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]