Thanks for looking over the plan Kevin. 1. I wasn't planning any changes for bugzilla. I think it's appropriate for the bug reports to be filed against the epel8 component. Typically there should be an epel8 branch already when an epel8-next branch is requested. The only exception I can imagine is if a package has a dependency on a package that is in CentOS Stream but isn't in a RHEL GA release yet. Even then, it would only be a temporary situation, because within six months that package would make it into RHEL and then the package should be built in epel8, not epel8-next. Do you think it would be worthwhile for fedscm-admin to enforce a requirement of an epel8 branch before allowing the creation of an epel8-next branch?
2. I'm perfectly fine waiting until after F33 is done. That makes lots of sense. On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:07 PM Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 11:12:28PM -0500, Carl George wrote: > > Here is my rough outline of the steps required to implement this proposal. > > I imagine things would happen roughly in this order, but some things could > > probably take place in parallel. > > > > 1. EPEL Steering Committee approves the proposal > > 2. koji changes: > > - create CentOS Stream 8 external repo > > - create epel8-next build target (inheriting from epel8) > > - dist macro override for that target > > 3. create PDC entries > > 4. update fedscm-admin with branch SLAs > > 5. configure dist-git to allow branch name > > 6. update pungi config > > 7. add epel-next-repo subpackage to epel-release > > 8. add epel8-next release in bodhi > > 9. document in the wiki > > 10. announcement email > > > > Please let me know if I'm missing anything. > > Looks pretty good to me, but two things: > > 1. I assume (but good to ask) that we are not going to change anything > in bugzilla? ie, bug reports should just go against the epel component? > Of course now that playground is 'seperate' and next will also be, would > we ever have cases where we have a component without epel branch, but > with playground and/or next? And what would we do for bugs there? > > 2. We are heading into final freeze for Fedora 33 next tuesday, so not > sure how much will get done until f33 is out the door. Is it ok to do > this after? Some of it could be done with freeze breaks and such, but > might be easier just to do it all at once after f33 freeze is over? > > Thanks much for putting this together! > > kevin > -- > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:43 PM Carl George <c...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > I agree, using .el8.next for the dist macro makes the most sense. This > > > will > > > enable maintainers to use a similar workflow to Fedora branches, where > > > older > > > branches can be fast forwarded, and the same commit can be built for > > > different targets but still have different NVRs in Koji. Here is an > > > example > > > workflow for a fictional foo package that already exists in Fedora. > > > > > > - request epel8 branch > > > - merge master branch to epel8 branch > > > - build epel8 branch, resulting in foo-1-1.el8 > > > - realize it won't install on CentOS Stream due to a library difference > > > - request epel8-next branch > > > - merge epel8 branch to epel8-next branch > > > - build epel8-next branch, resulting in foo-1-1.el8.next > > > > > > After the next RHEL 8 minor release (when that library difference affects > > > everyone), the maintainer can increment the release on the epel8 branch > > > and > > > proceed as usual. > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:54:00PM -0500, Carl George wrote: > > > > > At the EPEL Steering Committee last week, we had an extensive > > > > > discussion of > > > > > this proposal, specifically focused on how to handle the dist macro. > > > > > I > > > > > believe these are the possible choices. > > > > > > > > > > * keep dist the same as epel8 (.el8) > > > > > > > > > > RHEL, CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream, and EPEL are all currently using > > > > > .el8 for > > > > > dist. It would make sense to continue using the same dist for EPEL > > > > > Next. > > > > > However, this would put a little more work on packagers. They would > > > > > not be > > > > > able to build the same commit for both EPEL and EPEL Next because the > > > > > NVR > > > > > will conflict in Koji. In simple rebuild situations, this is not a > > > > > problem > > > > > because at a minimum the release will be higher. But if a packager > > > > > wanted > > > > > to update the package in both EPEL and EPEL Next, they will need to > > > > > first > > > > > update and build it in EPEL, then bump the release and build it in > > > > > EPEL > > > > > Next. This isn't ideal, but isn't terrible either, and can be > > > > > partially > > > > > mitigated by good documentation around EPEL Next workflows. > > > > > > > > > > * modify dist to always be higher than epel8 (.el8.next or similar) > > > > > > > > > > In EPEL Next we could define dist to a string that RPM evaluates > > > > > higher than > > > > > .el8, such as .el8.next. This would allow EPEL and EPEL Next > > > > > branches to be > > > > > in sync and the same commit could be built for both targets. The > > > > > higher > > > > > dist would ensure the upgrade path works. > > > > > > > > I think this makes the most sense and will help packages workflows the > > > > best. > > > > > > > > kevin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carl George > > > > > > > > -- > > Carl George > > _______________________________________________ > > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Carl George _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
