On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 11:19:02AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > I think we should stop and think again why we do mass rebuilds and why we do > them prior release. "The goal is to rebuild every single Fedora package, > regardless of content, before the Fedora 41 Change Deadline." [1] is not > very elaborated and I was not able to find anything better.
So, would it surprise you to learn that we (at least in the past) didn't do mass rebuilds every cycle? The policy (as I understand it) is that we schedule mass rebuilds when there are approved changes that have requested that. This time we have: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Mass_Rebuild#Driving_Features I am not sure why Ruby is there... the sbin change does mention mass rebuild, but the toolchain one explicitly asks for one. ...snip... > > So why won't we postpone the mass rebuild after branching? That would IMHO > provide the most user visible change and that is the change of dist tag. And > it would provide the information about the general state of packages. Mass rebuilding which? Rawhide or the new branched? Or both? rawhide would be fine, but all those changes would have to be made again in branched when found. branched would be bad because then we would have to fix rawhide, but rawhide is supposed to be ahead of branched so we are working backwards. both is a gigantic waste of resources, double builds, more bugs, more churn for maintainers. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
