On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:12 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:47 PM Remi Collet <fed...@famillecollet.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Le 24/02/2020 à 17:48, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit : > > > > > > > - You can easily opt-in by using the macros > > > > > > Please keep opt-in as a mandatory need for such a change. > > > > > > > > > To be clear, I will be (perhaps the only) one to not use it. > > > > > > > > > For now spec file are self-contained, which is nice. > > > > > > I don't like the idea of generated / external stuff related > > > to "storage" or "build system" > > > > > > > > > Sorry, to be again the old bad guy which don't like changes. > > > > > > Remi > > > > FWIW, I agree. Maybe I'm getting old as well >:-D > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to use any information from outside the > > dist-git repository as a source of truth for anything. > > The big benefit of only using the git repository as source of > > information is that it is immutable, reproducible, and cannot be > > changed after commits have been pushed. > > The git repository data is also available for working on packages > > *offline*, in contrast to having to ask koji for the number of builds > > since X ... > > The way I see it is this: > With the number of commits+number of build idea, you get the same results > locally and in bodhi. > Locally fedpkg build or rpmbuild -ba will override the existing RPM > In koji, it will simply append a .1 to the release to avoid overriding the > existing RPM. > But the content and release, except for two characters, will be the same.
(snip) > That being said, there seems to be a consensus forming about wanting to rely > only on number of commits (though, we still have the upgrade path issue to > sort > out). Hi Pierre, After reporting a few upgrade path bugs for (I think) fedora 28 and 29, I was told that "we don't care about upgrade path anymore", since "dnf system-upgrade" operates in "distro-sync" mode by default, since a few releases ago. So I don't see upgrade path as a (big) concern here. There may be package downgrades at system-upgrade time, but that's already the case today - most of the time because either people forget to build for fedora-branched after the branch point, or because they forget to submit bodhi updates after update-testing activation point. Whereas those two are "real" downgrades, any downgrades caused by the new commit counting would only be "downgrade by number but upgrade in content". Fabio Side note: I've been meaning to propose dropping Epoch because of this "we don't care about upgrade path anymore", but I've not gotten around to do that yet 😈️ > Pierre > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
