On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:40 AM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:

>
> Dne 26. 01. 25 v 16:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 12:24 PM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24. 01. 25 22:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > Note that side tags aren't the only issue. Sometimes a maintainer
>> > commits a bump to git but doesn't build it in a side tag or rawhide,
>> > for whatever reason. Sometimes a package is*built*, but gated from
>> > Rawhide by automated tests, but then the mass rebuild effectively
>> > overrides the gating (we found several cases like this). Just checking
>> > side tags isn't gonna catch everything. I really think the appropriate
>> > check is 'was the build most recently tagged into fXX built from the
>> > current git commit? if not, don't rebuild this package, yell for manual
>> > intervention'.
>>
>> Generally, this sounds like a good idea.
>>
>> However, note that is is not uncommon for (proven)packagers to commit
>> stuff
>> that will only eventually get built. We might discover that the number of
>> packages that we yell at for no good reason is too high.
>>
>> As an example of a big chnage, I think the SPDX commits were pushed but
>> not built.
>>
>>
> It's possible that I'm in the minority here, but I honestly don't think
> anything should be pushed to dist-git unless it's intended to be built more
> or less immediately. Yes, even changes without an immediate functional
> impact like the SPDX changes.
>
>
> I would agree with your statement if I was considering this just from
> mass-rebuild perspective. But considering usage of those packages, I
> believe that we should always consider the amount of updates.
>
> If I ignore that am Rawhide user consuming such changes, updated package
> in Rawhide also means that maybe others mock caches will become obsolete.
>
>
So, in the case of Branched/Stable Fedora, we can always opt not to submit
a Bodhi update to avoid bugging people. With Rawhide's automated updates,
that does indeed lead to more churn, but I'd argue that this is probably
not a major issue. The majority of Rawhide usage is likely to be in CI
systems rather than end-user systems (Kevin, myself and other insane people
who run Rawhide on our primary machines notwithstanding).

So I don't think the impact would be terrible.



> That said, I agree with Kevin that we should have the compose reports list
> anything in the compose whose state is "The commit at the HEAD of the
> `rawhide` branch does not match the commit used for the latest build in
> Rawhide" and treat that as a bug (ideally, we'd open one automatically)
> that must be resolved prior to the next mass-rebuild (either by getting a
> build done or tagging the bug in some way that indicates that it's okay for
> the mass-rebuild to build it). Anything still on the list when the
> mass-rebuild is ready to start should be skipped and the bug should be
> marked as a blocker for Beta (to make sure it gets looked at). Detecting
> this should be fairly easy, albeit adding a bit to the Koji API load.
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
-- 
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to