I think that only real restriction on branch naming is in fedpkg/fedpk-copr (load_rpmdefines function). I think that's the heart of the issue. If you could provide a sane default case for parsing branch_merge variable, then we could adjust everything else (e.g. mock_chroot_name -> branch, branch -> os conversions in frontend or dist-git.conf if needed).
clime On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > So far in Copr, there is "inherited" git branch naming from Fedora's > dist-git, i.e. 'f24' for fedora 24, el5 for 'epel-5' and epel7 for > 'epel-7'. The chroots in Fedora Copr are named 'fedora-N-ARCH' or > 'epel-N-ARCH', today there started 'mageia-N-ARCH' chroots (with mga6, > shouldn't there be mag6?). But Copr is not supposed to be used by Fedora > only. > > The problem I internally solved/workaround-ed are RHEL chroots. Those are > named 'rhel-VERSION-ARCH'. To have it done there are several patches > (against dist-git, backend, and front-end packages). > > The problem, for example is, that 'el6' branch is "by default" allocated > for 'epel-6-ARCH' chroots, and can not be used by RHEL. There are > multiple versions of RHEL-6 too (like rhel-6.dev-x86_64). > > I'm curious whether we could "rename" the existing branches to some more > consistent, "future-friendly" strings. For example: > > -> 'fedora/25' (the actual f25) > -> 'fedora/rawhide' (the actual master) > -> 'centos/7' (the actual epel7) > -> 'centos/6' (the actual el6) > -> 'mageia/6' (the actual mga6) > -> 'epel/7' (doesn't exist yet ..) > -> 'rhel/version' (exists internally ..) > > For OCD like me, it would be really pretty having it "cleanly" named, but > it would be also useful for 'chroot-id <-> branch-name <-> dist-tag' > converting (which now requires downstream _code_ patching, not only > configuration). > > Also, if we used such naming, there's no need to think again what the > 'master' > branch is used for ... (rhel? fedora? epel?) and for the future, adding > other distributions (or complements for say rpmfusion) would be easy. > > I don't remember why I chose 'fedora/25' "downstream" instead of > 'fedora-25', it IMO doesn't matter, and as I have it already done O:-) I > prefer '/' separator. But that basically doesn't matter. > > Anyway --> is something like that acceptable upstream? I have patches for > it already (this would require copying branches within existing git > repositories). There is plan B: propose this patches but add options > turning this behavior on/off, whatever default we'll choose. > > While we are on that, could we discuss renaming from 'epel-*' to > 'centos-*'? Because we don't tell the truth entirely if we claim those are > epel-* chroots. > > Pavel > _______________________________________________ > copr-devel mailing list -- copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > To unsubscribe send an email to copr-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org >
_______________________________________________ copr-devel mailing list -- copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to copr-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
