apologies for top-post(*) There was an email a couple days ago with concern about the release strategy and I didnt see followup (or missed it, in which case, apologies). Basically, it would be really great if we separated out stable releases into OpenSUSE:Tools and put beta releases into the -Devel project. This has affected me in several ways: -- It has been very difficult time for me with our IT staff when the "stable" repo has "beta" packages in it. 'Beta' software requires extremely intensive approval process that just drains the life from you. I know that there is very little difference between them except the label, but our IT folk cannot be made to understand. -- We would like to have a couple instances running for different international sites and I cant get the versions synced because of the churn. -- some rpm upgrade problems (hopefully recently fixed) have prevented me from doing regular upgrades because my obs instance kept breaking and requiring attention after every upgrade -- Michael (*) travelling internationally and only have access to a broken email client. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Mohring [mailto:martin.mohring@opensuse.org] Sent: Tue 4/14/2009 5:15 PM To: opensuse-buildservice@opensuse.org Cc: Adrian Schröter Subject: Re: [opensuse-buildservice] Build Team Meeting Adrian Schröter wrote:

present: froh, lrupp, rlihm, adrian, abauer, freitag, mls

Topics: * Status Round * 1.6 Release

Status Round ============

abauer: * continue to work on webclient 2.0 * Smaller bugfixes and implementation

freitag: * Debugged and fixed the "world spamming" hermes bug. (Sent a submission request to everybody in the system instead of target group only after receiving broken input message).

mls: * Fixed a bug in signing daemon, fixes resignment with rpm from openSUSE 11.1 (broken signed packages after aggregation) * broken source link merge functionality is implemented, except in osc part.

rlihm: * Java script code fixes for webclient 2.0 * Thinking about project and package listings of webclient * Discussion with Sigi about our download page.

adrian: * Currently live image builds are limited to 2GB size due to paritioning of build hosts. Easiest solution is to increase swap size. AI: mls evaluate if we can export build result via a more clever mechanism, just exporting the block numbers and read directly from root partition without need to trust the file system. * Implemented improved handling of source links with revision numbers. (new "osc setlinkrev" command, not yet released).

1.6 Release ===========

* Got released as 1.6 Beta 1 * Feature complete, but we need further testing with instance at opensuse.org. Current status is: - Debian 5.0 arm builds a working, Maemo builds already running - No working rpm based builds yet, Fedora 10 has too broken qemu. No other rpm based distro imported yet. GSoC project shall provide a SUSE based arm distro as base.

mmohring: * fixed code for XEN / qemu user mode arm * provided static mount / bash for OBS worker images to be able to run Cross Build * provided some code for cross build activation * adrian deployed these new worker images * fixed build script to replace "uname -i" * throughtoutly tested -r 7072 with cross build * provied updates packages for obs, osc, build in openSUSE:Tools:Devel after OBS 1.6 Beta on svn trunk -r 7072 * tested cross OBS with Mer 0.10 and 0.11 * some review of QEMU patches used in cross OBS with QEMU maintainer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Apr 14, Michael_E_Brown@Dell.com wrote:

apologies for top-post(*)

There was an email a couple days ago with concern about the release strategy and I didnt see followup (or missed it, in which case, apologies).

Basically, it would be really great if we separated out stable releases into OpenSUSE:Tools and put beta releases into the -Devel project. This has affected me in several ways:

-- It has been very difficult time for me with our IT staff when the "stable" repo has "beta" packages in it. 'Beta' software requires extremely intensive approval process that just drains the life from you. I know that there is very little difference between them except the label, but our IT folk cannot be made to understand.

-- We would like to have a couple instances running for different international sites and I cant get the versions synced because of the churn.

-- some rpm upgrade problems (hopefully recently fixed) have prevented me from doing regular upgrades because my obs instance kept breaking and requiring attention after every upgrade

Yes, I can only second that. Although I only install updates on our production machine after I did test them on the staging system... -- With best regards, Carsten Hoeger