Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:50:58AM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > RPMs... Well, if someone has an application on their server that doesn't > run in a container, there are still RPMs on a traditional system. But would > you install multiple versions stuff on that single system? Or would other >

Re: pkgdb 'collections' API is now inaccurate, will soon go away (was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change)

Adam Williamson wrote: > pkgdb had an API endpoint, 'collections', which was useful as a > reliable source of information about available Fedora releases and > their status. It still exists now, until pkgdb is entirely turned off: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/collections/ > >

Re: pkgdb 'collections' API is now inaccurate, will soon go away (was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change)

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:51:40PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:06:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > >I swear we talked about this somewhere before. I can't find the > > >ticket, though. > > Possibly https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/23 > Yes! That was

Re: pkgdb 'collections' API is now inaccurate, will soon go away (was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change)

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:06:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >I swear we talked about this somewhere before. I can't find the > >ticket, though. > Possibly https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/23 Yes! That was totally it. Thanks. -- Matthew Miller Fedora

Re: pkgdb 'collections' API is now inaccurate, will soon go away (was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change)

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: I swear we talked about this somewhere before. I can't find the ticket, though. Possibly https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/23 ___ devel mailing list --

Re: pkgdb 'collections' API is now inaccurate, will soon go away (was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change)

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:13:17PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > There's an important consequence of this that I only realized today. > > pkgdb had an API endpoint, 'collections', which was useful as a > reliable source of information about available Fedora releases and > their status. It still

pkgdb 'collections' API is now inaccurate, will soon go away (was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change)

On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 15:42 -0400, Ralph Bean wrote: > To make this happen requires significant infrastructure changes. Our > proposed plan[4] is to decommission PkgDB entirely and to replace it > with a combination of PDC[5] and pagure over dist-git. (Tangentially, > getting pagure over

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

/*Adam Samalik*/ wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:50:58 +0200: On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Randy Barlow > wrote: On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > You add the package and other people start

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > You add the package and other people start to use it. That's great > > until you need to change the version, but can't, because other people > > started

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > You add the package and other people start to use it. That's great > until you need to change the version, but can't, because other people > started to use it as a dependency and it would break their stuff. I recently heard that it will be

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 08/06/17 18:54, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >>> I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that >>> did want to get into more detail I guess

Re: Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On 08/06/17 18:54, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that did want to get into more detail I guess but I think I wound up there following through from some of the other stuff about

Modularity and packagers [was Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that > did want to get into more detail I guess but I think I wound up > there following through from some of the other stuff about arbitrary > branching and I was mostly

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On 08/06/17 18:28, Adam Samalik wrote: On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Tom Hughes > wrote: Speaking for myself I came across that the other day and got as far as clicking through to the documentation page and seeing that just the contents

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 08/06/17 17:58, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> >>> Normally I ignore any Modularity discussion. It doesn't interest me, >>> and it doesn't affect any

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On 08/06/17 17:58, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Normally I ignore any Modularity discussion. It doesn't interest me, and it doesn't affect any projects I work on. It's my own fault that this change, which does affect me, was not on

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Normally I ignore any Modularity discussion. It doesn't interest me, > and it doesn't affect any projects I work on. It's my own fault that > this change, which does affect me, was not on my radar. I'm not > looking to stop the

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On 06/08/2017 10:24 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: Speaking as someone on both side of doors... this is not something that was developed in secret at all. It's something that was implied by the modularity work — which has been very open — and the change "in the open last month" is all there is to it.

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:42:45AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > This change, which is a pretty radical change, was only brought out > in the open last month. It's now being shovelled down our throats > after being behind closed doors for who knows how long. This is a > dramatic reversal

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On 06/08/2017 09:13 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: So, PkgDB now comes with a big fat warning saying: "Attention! PkgDB will be replaced during the week of July 10th, 2017. Please read the following for migration instructions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb; If

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

So, PkgDB now comes with a big fat warning saying: "Attention! PkgDB will be replaced during the week of July 10th, 2017. Please read the following for migration instructions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb; If I go there I find no "migration instructions"

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

This enables us to have branches that make more sense for individual packages - so we can save work by having just one branch for one version acrsoss releases, or to offer more versions or "streams". A slide [1] from my recent talk demonstrates the possibilities - and also shows why branches are

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On 06/02/2017 06:02 PM, Ralph Bean wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a): >>> Any feedback before that would be >>> greatly appreciated. >> >> PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Ralph Bean wrote: > The main motivation behind this is to enable functionality required by > Modularity[3] and to ultimately reduce some package maintenance > burden. For some packages, it makes sense to have only a single branch > that feeds into multiple

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a): > > Any feedback before that would be > > greatly appreciated. > > PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that > after the migration? The Koschei devs

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

On 05/29/2017 04:41 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a): >> Any feedback before that would be >> greatly appreciated. > > PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that > after the migration? The wiki page needs updating but the

Re: PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a): > Any feedback before that would be > greatly appreciated. PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that after the migration? Does this change somehow affect fedora-packages (aka Moksha)

PkgDB and the ArbitraryBranching Change

Hello, As part of the Factory 2.0 and Modularity efforts[1], we’ve been developing a plan to migrate to an “arbitrary” branching model from our current model of one branch per release (as had been discussed at Flock and DevConf[2]). The main motivation behind this is to enable functionality