Does this RFC include an obligation for the 'major toolchain upgrades' Fedora Change owners to rebuild the dependent packages ?
I mean - without a failed build it doesn't really make a difference to me. FTBFS bugzilla ticket is something I note and try to solve. However without a rebuild, the change may or may not break my packages - no one will know until mass rebuild. And I can hardly see myself trying to rebuild all my packages myself 1-6 days before the mass rebuild, when the mass rebuild will do that for me. In short: Knowing sooner that my packages are affected will likely make me fix them sooner. But without knowing that, I likely won't be trying to find out myself, when the mass rebuild will do that for me. Michal -- Michal Schorm Software Engineer Databases Team Red Hat -- On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 7:05 PM Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > For reference, this has been discussed at the last FPC meeting: > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-01-23/fpc.2025-01-23-17.00.log.html > > And I filed a corresponding RFC with FESCo here: > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3347 > > In an effort to avoid the large amount of breakage during the mass > rebuild that happened with GCC 15 and Go 1.24 landing only *hours* > before it was started, we suggested the following: > > "Major toolchain upgrades must land at least 7 days before the > scheduled start of the mass rebuild." > > This would mean either major toolchain updates would need to be pushed > slightly earlier, or the mass rebuild is started slightly later, plus > / minus a few days. A proposal to move the January mass rebuild back > by two entire weeks had previously been rejected by FESCo, mostly > because it would result in the mass rebuild (and its fallout) > happening during FOSDEM. > > Making sure major toolchain updates are in place at least one week > before the start of the mass rebuild should give maintainers more time > to deal with potential breakage and / or give compiler maintainers > more time to fix regressions that are only found after the update > lands. > > Due to the way how release schedules line up, this additional > "checkpoint" would mostly affect GCC and golang, but potentially also > other major toolchains - though LLVM will likely continue to need an > exception to allow landing the major update "very late" - because the > LLVM release schedule doesn't line up well with the Fedora release > schedule. > > There have been some comments on the FESCo ticket, but it would > probably be better to have a discussion on the mailing list, instead. > > Fabio > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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
