At Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:14:19 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Freitag 02 Oktober 2009 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
At Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:24:43 -0400,
Hi,
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
[Sorry for the resend, Coolo - accidentally sent it from my personal address]
Hi Coolo -
Quick question for you on how the kernel projects on the build service should be structured. I've noticed GNOME and KDE have :Factory projects, but I'm unclear on their uses. Are the GNOME and KDE projects the devel projects and the GNOME:Factory and KDE:Factory projects the bleeding edge? Is there a cascade effect where changes start in :Factory, then flow into the regular repo, and then into the openSUSE:Factory project? If that's the case, then my problem is easy enough to solve.
GNOME and KDE maintain their factory packages in :Factory and use it also for people who want the lasted GNOME/KDE on older distributions. So it's bleeding edge as far as openSUSE is concerned. KDE has also :UNSTABLE, which contains random svn snapshots that have no relation to factory packages. I don't think there is something similiar for GNOME.
So, :UNSTABLE would correspond to 2.6.32 :)
Here's my concern. Kernel:HEAD serves two purposes which are going to conflict in the next week or so. The first is that it contains a reasonably up-to-date snapshot of the master kernel git repo. The second is that it serves as a devel project for openSUSE:Factory.
In the next week, 2.6.32-rc2 will be released and that is usually when I start revving the master kernel to sync up with the latest upstream snapshot. Why would you do that? Why would you want to split between master and 11.2 branch that early?
Partly because this would help debugging. It can be indeed a help for both FACTORY and upstream. Assume you get a bug on 11.2 kernel. Developers usually would like to know first whether it's already fixed on the latest kernel. Providing a test kernel package is a great help for users so that they can test without compiling by themselves. Of course, this is good for the upstream development, too, which will get back to us later in turn. (snip)
I think this is a general problem found in other devel projects, too. As we are in the version freeze for 11.2, no development is allowed in devel project :) It'd be nice if we have a generic rule about this.
There is a reason we put 11.2 in version freeze: a) so people test a pretty fixed set of packages for a longer time b) so developers fix bugs instead of updating to unrelated versions
I'm not against the version freeze of FACTORY. I'm actually for it. Anyway, my concern is that there are many doubled meanings in devel-projects -- the development repo for FACTORY, and the development repo for the projects (and sometimes the projects hosting backports for old distros). As now, most projects have been moved to devel projects served as the first purpose. Then, suddenly people noticed that they can't update to the newer version now, and no idea where to move. Many people provide the update version in home:* project instead, which is hard to find for users. So, what I'm saying is that we need a common naming rule of the projects for the latest upstream / test packages, like :UNSTABLE. Kernel could be a bit different, BTW. I think Kernel: can contain 2.6.* projects containing the last SUSE kernel packages of the corresponding kernel versions. (Look at home:tiwai:kernel:2.6.* projects.)
Don't get me wrong, but I see 75 bugs reported against "Kernel", so if someone tests 2.6.32-rc2 is the least of my worries.
All 2.6.32-rc2 bugs can be simply passed to bugzilla.kernel.org, and bnc can be closed as RESOLVED:UPSTREAM. thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help@opensuse.org