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.
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?
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. Actually 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 copies.
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 someone tests 2.6.32-rc2 is the least of my worries. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help@opensuse.org