Am Freitag 02 Oktober 2009 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
At Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:24:43 -0400,
Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> [Sorry for the resend, Coolo - accidentally sent it from my personal
> 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.
> 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
Why would you do that? Why would you want to split between master
branch that early?
> With the current setup, that will end up putting untested and
> potentially unstable code in the devel project, which appears to be
> synced fairly frequently into openSUSE:Factory. That's not what we want,
No, I synced it 2 times because of important bug reports. We can push to O:F
from any other project like Kernel:112_BRANCH, there is no problem with that.
There is no automatism that pushes :Head - it's just me :)
> obviously. OTOH, the KOTD HEAD/master kernel has
always been the
> bleeding edge and I don't want to change that either.
> We can sync the 11.2 tree to Kernel:HEAD after the split, but then we
> lose the testing we regularly get from having that repo. OTOH, if we add
> another kernel package, and use that as the devel project, then we can
> keep Kernel:HEAD the way it is and preserve openSUSE:Factory as well.
I don't see the value of having 2.6.32-rc2 in master branch. And if
there is, then you need to create a 112_BRANCH project _now_ and you can use
it to push updates to O:F bypassing the devel project.
This is similiar to devel:languages:perl, where there is already a newer perl
than what we'll have in 11.2. Perl updates are pushed now from direct factory
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
Don't get me wrong, but I see 75 bugs reported against "Kernel", so if
tests 2.6.32-rc2 is the least of my worries.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help(a)opensuse.org