Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: Hi, On 07/11/2012 03:44 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: I'm perhaps being unclear, An announcemenbt that goes out at the same time as the release itself is not helpful. They've selected as a Mirrors know about the upcoming release well in advance - remember that we seed in excess of 1200 external non .centos.org mirrors before a release. We, CentOS, 'announce' when users can do a yum update. If you follow any of the routes where upcoming release work is being documented, you would have known about the upcoming release well in advance. Hi, Karanbir! Interesting to see you over here. For SL users, Karanbir is the active CentOS team member who does the most effective email support on their mailing lists, among his other fine qualities, and I've actually regretted not seeing his interesting and informative material since leaving the CentOS mailing list. Karanbir, some of the problems were the downstreams who run unofficial mirrors, and the sudden bandwidth hit for folks who run regular updates. Our favorite upstream vendors make *general* announcements of when pending releases might occur so we can schedule resources. In this case, I certainly believe you that the official upstream mirrors knew. My unofficial local mirrors, which I use for mock and local virtualization software builds, exploded before I could pre-populate it and add specific exclusions to trim its size. (Excluding 6.3 i386 components, for example.). matter of policy not to announce pending releases: it drove me nuts, and and is one of the contributing reasons to my switch to Scientific Linux. Scientific Linux's very effective rolling updates for components, before a new release is published, has been very, very helpful to me in my personal research work building new packages. I'm not doing a panicky, unplanned rebuild of my packages for what is an unplanned and unexpected release with hundreds of updated components: I can keep my testing environments up to date before the release. So, run a staged local repo, and dont deploy from upstream to production on the fly. Its what pretty much everyone does. And that's precisely what the unannounced release blew up, my local staged repo. 6.3 included a lot of new material, and the filesystem with the local repo was getting cramped. I really can't get into why that filesystem doesn't have more pace.. The release going out the same day as the first general announcement doesn't leave enough time to activate or expand storage. As it was, I thd to toss out my CentOS 4.x archive. (I'd used it for testing the Subversion 1.6.18 and 1.7.5 backports I've published over at https://www.github.com/nkadel/, do check those out for help migrating off of CentOS 4.x and using much better source control.) On a host by host basis, this is compounded for folks who run yum -y update --downloadonly to prestage their updates. That took. quite a lot of local disk space on a lot of hosts. And if you're somone who allocates /var space cautiously or as a smallish separate partition, it could be a real problem. That's why I'm calling it an unannounced release. The lack of tentative release dates for CentOS has been only one of the reasons, for me at least, to use Scientific Linux instead wherever possible. It was a big problem with the 6.0 release, which took so very long, and the 6.3 release which was pleasingly swift (and for which your group shold be applauded!). But it was so fast it was a bit of a surprise
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Friday, July 20, 2012 08:27:05 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: That's why I'm calling it an unannounced release. The lack of tentative release dates for CentOS has been only one of the reasons, for me at least, to use Scientific Linux instead wherever possible. It was a big problem with the 6.0 release, which took so very long, and the 6.3 release which was pleasingly swift (and for which your group shold be applauded!). But it was so fast it was a bit of a surprise Nico, The release process was thoroughly tracked on the CentOS QA OpenAtrium instance: Completion of the initial 6.3 build at http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/130 on 6/23; QA wrapped up on 7/7 as per http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/135 ; Release preannouncement was two days later on 7/9 as per http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/136 That's almost exactly a two week QA period, exactly as documented, and much slower than if they had just released what first compiled. While 6.0 was quite slow, that is very much in the past, as 6.1 and 6.2 happened pretty quickly in comparison, and 6.3 was exactly on schedule. The key announcement on the QA site was the QA wrapup on 7/7; this was the cue for any mirrors to get ready for the deluge. The standard schedule is documented as being 'two weeks or so from upstream release' and that was confirmed with the 6.3 release. The SL process is different (not better, and not worse, just different, in my opinion at least) as determined by the SL developers. It works for them, and they do good work. SL has different aims, the most different of which is to support someone choosing to stay at, say, 6.0, but still get security updates released (by upstream) as part of upstream's 6.3. This is a more difficult goal to achieve, really, and it should neither surprise nor bother anyone that it takes longer to do it that way. It is good to see both rebuilds doing a fine job.
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
Hi, On 07/11/2012 03:44 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: I'm perhaps being unclear, An announcemenbt that goes out at the same time as the release itself is not helpful. They've selected as a Mirrors know about the upcoming release well in advance - remember that we seed in excess of 1200 external non .centos.org mirrors before a release. We, CentOS, 'announce' when users can do a yum update. If you follow any of the routes where upcoming release work is being documented, you would have known about the upcoming release well in advance. matter of policy not to announce pending releases: it drove me nuts, and and is one of the contributing reasons to my switch to Scientific Linux. Scientific Linux's very effective rolling updates for components, before a new release is published, has been very, very helpful to me in my personal research work building new packages. I'm not doing a panicky, unplanned rebuild of my packages for what is an unplanned and unexpected release with hundreds of updated components: I can keep my testing environments up to date before the release. So, run a staged local repo, and dont deploy from upstream to production on the fly. Its what pretty much everyone does. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 07/11/2012 02:01 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sure, CentOS do things differently. If it compiles, ship it. erm. No. Thats not how CentOS does it. SL will more than likely do a Beta, RC, then release - just like they have with each other point release. Would love to see this testing process/code documented somewhere and what the implications are. So we might be able to better and improve the process in CentOS as well. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 18/07/12 13:36, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 07/11/2012 02:01 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sure, CentOS do things differently. If it compiles, ship it. erm. No. Thats not how CentOS does it. SL will more than likely do a Beta, RC, then release - just like they have with each other point release. Would love to see this testing process/code documented somewhere and what the implications are. So we might be able to better and improve the process in CentOS as well. Is there a place where you document the CentOS processes?
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 07/18/2012 09:36 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 07/11/2012 02:01 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: Sure, CentOS do things differently. If it compiles, ship it. erm. No. Thats not how CentOS does it. SL will more than likely do a Beta, RC, then release - just like they have with each other point release. Would love to see this testing process/code documented somewhere and what the implications are. So we might be able to better and improve the process in CentOS as well. But its more fun to spin drama, put on a show of feigned superiority and generally behave like lonesome children instead! ;-) I'm sure Connie or Pat would be the people to ask about the QA process and probably happy to discuss is -- the site/wiki isn't always the focus at SL, it seems (forums aside, I think a lot of us here read/edit your wiki over at CentOS for non-dev stuff, come to think of it). Anyway, nice to see you around, KB. Didn't know you kept up with the ML here. Hope you're still having fun.
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 07/18/2012 01:58 PM, James Holland wrote: Would love to see this testing process/code documented somewhere and what the implications are. So we might be able to better and improve the process in CentOS as well. Is there a place where you document the CentOS processes? we are starting to, the QA team has been in place for about 4 years now and we try to cover as many roles/deployment types as can. There is quite a bit of documentation on the wiki, additions and contributions to that are welcome. I've personally spoken at Fosdem earlier this year on the Continuous Integration process we are working on ( http://ci.dev.centos.org/ is the 'public dev' side for this, with the t_functional suite triggers in place now ). The Distro/tree tests, which themselves number 150+, is something I'm working on to get into the same harness before we hit CentOS-5.9 / 6.4. Problem with that is as the other test suites before, its been built in place to cater to a very specific setup working in a very specific state - and because they consider the entire 'distro tree' ( ie. the mirror.centos.org layout ), its not exactly portable. I hope to have that fixed and onto the gitorious setup soon. the actual test harness around it does dozens of installs trying to cover every possible install role and type ( eg. we test xen, kvm, virtualbox, vmware, real machines for http installs, iso installs, ftp installs, nfs installs. And were using local as well as remote storage in each of those setups ). If you now write up a matrix, just the installer is getting well exercised. We're hoping to expand this into the next release by adding more install environments and roles per deployment (eg. most of the testing now is done for a base setup and the test suites being run inside each base setup per environment ). The plan is to expand that into addressing different roles ( please contribute kickstarts! ) as well. Its worth noting here that this is not something we do on a per-release basis, the entire test suite is something we aim to run on every individual package build + release. For release time work, the QA team guys do manual tests over and above everything else. To some extent, I feel the 'QA team' term is no longer really relevant, these guys have mostly transitioned into being the Release Team now. As before, contributions and additions to the test harness, the test suites, the automation and even ideas for testing etc, are welcome. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
Hey! On 07/18/2012 02:00 PM, zxq9 wrote: I'm sure Connie or Pat would be the people to ask about the QA process and probably happy to discuss is -- the site/wiki isn't always the focus at SL, it seems (forums aside, I think a lot of us here read/edit your wiki over at CentOS for non-dev stuff, come to think of it). Excellent :) More editing please... Anyway, nice to see you around, KB. Didn't know you kept up with the ML here. Hope you're still having fun. To be honest, while I am on the list - the b/w to keep up is mostly non-existant. I was pointed to this thread with a 'So, you guys do no testing' comment. I'm a bit sensitive about the QA team - these guys do a lot of work under a fair bit of pressure from a LOT of people, to have their work slighted in that manner was a bit off putting. On the other hand, testing is one of those things that one can never do enough of. And specially when our target is only made available once someone else has made up their mind as to what it needs to look like : things get trickier. fun, for sure. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 18/07/12 14:24, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 07/18/2012 01:58 PM, James Holland wrote: Would love to see this testing process/code documented somewhere and what the implications are. So we might be able to better and improve the process in CentOS as well. Is there a place where you document the CentOS processes? we are starting to, the QA team has been in place for about 4 years now and we try to cover as many roles/deployment types as can. There is quite a bit of documentation on the wiki, additions and contributions to that are welcome. It's great to hear that you're documenting things. I can't begin to understand most of what you say, but the more documentation there is the more people like me can learn and begin to help and apply that knowledge to other distros too. Thanks!
Re: ypserv + NIS : was Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:54:59AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote: On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: Yawn. My favourite bug (6.2 ypserv does not respond to NIS broadcasts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829475) did not make 6.3, got pushed to 6.4. You are not authorized to access bug #829475. Can you tell us more ? Confirmed, the bug is marked as internal. I asked them to fix it. This is the corresponding bug in Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781880 -- Konstantin Olchanski Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow! Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
Re: ypserv + NIS : was Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: Yawn. My favourite bug (6.2 ypserv does not respond to NIS broadcasts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829475) did not make 6.3, got pushed to 6.4. You are not authorized to access bug #829475. Can you tell us more ? Confirmed, the bug is marked as internal. I asked them to fix it. This is the corresponding bug in Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781880 Thanks very much. -- Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:49:29PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: A particular client's mirror of CentOS exploded today with the unannounced CentOS 6.3 release. Congratulations to them for such quick work: is there a nominal release date for SL 6.3, so I can make sure to allocate disk space? Yawn. My favourite bug (6.2 ypserv does not respond to NIS broadcasts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829475) did not make 6.3, got pushed to 6.4. Maybe it's a hint that I should learn LDAP. -- Konstantin Olchanski Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow! Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
ypserv + NIS : was Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: Yawn. My favourite bug (6.2 ypserv does not respond to NIS broadcasts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829475) did not make 6.3, got pushed to 6.4. You are not authorized to access bug #829475. Can you tell us more ? -- Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna
Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
A particular client's mirror of CentOS exploded today with the unannounced CentOS 6.3 release. Congratulations to them for such quick work: is there a nominal release date for SL 6.3, so I can make sure to allocate disk space? I've actually got a mock setup, running SL 6.2, chewing its way through all the upstream vendor's 6.3 SRPM's for my knowledge and education. (Also, I publish Subversion and BIND updated SRPM tools over at www.github.com/nkadel/ and want to test them with new environments.
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 11/07/2012 10:49 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: A particular client's mirror of CentOS exploded today with the unannounced CentOS 6.3 release. Congratulations to them for such quick work: is there a nominal release date for SL 6.3, so I can make sure to allocate disk space? What is it with people thinking that CentOS is some kind of competition for SL or RHEL? Sure, CentOS do things differently. If it compiles, ship it. SL will more than likely do a Beta, RC, then release - just like they have with each other point release. -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: http://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897 Fax: (03) 8338 0299
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: On 11/07/2012 10:49 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: A particular client's mirror of CentOS exploded today with the unannounced CentOS 6.3 release. Congratulations to them for such quick work: is there a nominal release date for SL 6.3, so I can make sure to allocate disk space? What is it with people thinking that CentOS is some kind of competition for SL or RHEL? Sure, CentOS do things differently. If it compiles, ship it. SL will more than likely do a Beta, RC, then release - just like they have with each other point release. Indeed. I hate to repeatedly quote my old post, but as far as there are people who say beat, I feel like doing it :) http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1201L=scientific-linux-usersT=0P=17067 Akemi
Re: Looks like CentOS beat SL to 6.3 release
On 11 July 2012 02:10, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote: On 11/07/2012 10:49 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: A particular client's mirror of CentOS exploded today with the unannounced CentOS 6.3 release. Congratulations to them for such quick work: is there a nominal release date for SL 6.3, so I can make sure to allocate disk space? What is it with people thinking that CentOS is some kind of competition for SL or RHEL? Sure, CentOS do things differently. If it compiles, ship it. SL will more than likely do a Beta, RC, then release - just like they have with each other point release. Indeed. I hate to repeatedly quote my old post, but as far as there are people who say beat, I feel like doing it :) http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1201L=scientific-linux-usersT=0P=17067 Akemi Furthermore, the release of CentOS 6.3 was not unannounced. For the record, here is the official announcement -- http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2012-July/018706.html Alan.
