aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Farrell <jfarr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Source releases vs artifact releases
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:19:12 GMT
Going back to the 0.9.0 example, if I checkout the 0.9.0 tag it will always
have a broken build-support/packaging/rpm, so even if we had excluded it
from the source release artifact we generated, apache-aurora-0.9.0.tar.gz,
it would still be there in the tag and branch and be broken. Anyone
checking these out would encounter this problem.

Having the packaging in its own repo enables us to have a branch there that
matches up with each source release and we can make any changes on that
branch and not impact the original source dist's tag or branch. So a rpm
change or deb change would not change the originally voted on source branch.

My concern is with any modifications to our voted on release branches and
post release having any new commits to them that may, or may not, line up
with that given initially released artifact. Changes to these branches to
me feels like a change to the released code which would warrant a new
release candidate.

-Jake

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:

> Wouldn't a separate repo make it even more difficult to associate build
> script changes to source code changes?
>
> -=Bill
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > In order to make this repeatable it might be good to split this off
> > entirely into its own aurora-packaging repo. If its still in the main
> repo
> > then when we create the release branch the packaging source will still be
> > in the new release branch, but the packaging code would not necessarily
> > line up with that given branched release (like we have currently for the
> > 0.9.0 branch). For people checking out the release branch and not the
> > source distribution this would be more confusing.
> >
> > To eliminate this potential guessing game and expanding on Bill's
> proposal
> > I would advocate for us to make the packaging its own repo,
> > aurora-packaging, and add a set of docker files so we can automate the
> > build of the given release deb/rpm's and script the process for creating
> > tags for each 0.9.0-1.rpm or 0.9.0-2.deb ...
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > An issue that we have not yet officially addressed is release
> management
> > as
> > > it pertains to binary artifacts we produce of Aurora.  Today, when we
> > cut a
> > > release, say 0.9.0, we essentially take a snapshot of (most of) our
> > > repository as a basis for voting and eventual distribution.
> > >
> > > An outstanding question thus far has been how a release is affected
> when
> > we
> > > need to change scripts and configurations for binary distributions [1]
> to
> > > produce a working binary artifact.  By some standards, a bug fix to an
> > RPM
> > > spec might require another official source release/vote.
> > >
> > > I've had several useful discussions with Jake Farrell about this, and
> we
> > > brought the discussion to the asfinfra hipchat room to hopefully get
> some
> > > quick guidance from someone on the ASF board.  Please see the quote
> below
> > > if you would like to see the transcript.
> > >
> > > The summary is that the board allows us to produce binaries as we see
> > fit,
> > > as the ASF does not consider them official releases.  As such, i
> propose
> > > that we treat build-support/packaging as distinct from the sources we
> > vote
> > > on for a source release.  I further propose that we omit
> > > build-support/packaging from our source distributions.  This will make
> it
> > > clear that they are not part of what we are voting on when we cut a
> > > release.
> > >
> > > With this distinction, i would like for us to adopt the practice of
> > > considering binary distributions 'downstream' from source
> distributions,
> > > and bug fixes to packaging do not require a new source distribution
> > > release.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora.git;a=tree;f=build-support/packaging;h=c77d9b8ab2d8e6ecea2d8028bcdb250239240ffe;hb=HEAD
> > >
> > > Jake Farrell 12:03 PM
> > > > question for the greater audience about packaging, we just cut and rc
> > and
> > > > voted on it, successfully passed. as part of the src release was code
> > to
> > > > create deb and rpm packages. went to cut the rpm's to vote on bin
> > > artifacts
> > > > and there is a bug in the rpm spec
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:04 PM
> > > > burn and reroll? :)
> > > >
> > > > Jake Farrell 12:05 PM
> > > > would the recommendation be to cut a new rc or would having the
> deb/rpm
> > > > packaging code in separate repo on its own release be more in line.
> > i.e.,
> > > > package 0.1.0-2.rpm in packaging land
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:07 PM
> > > > you could cut a new release and bypass the 72h rule
> > > >
> > > > Bill Farner 12:09 PM
> > > > a goal i'm seeking with this is to decouple source release from
> binary
> > > > releases, if possible. that way we don't have things like releases
> for
> > N
> > > > distros that are no-ops because we fixed something in 1. it also
> means
> > > that
> > > > we don't have source releases that have no binary releases because
> of a
> > > > packaging spec bug
> > > > we're currently in the latter situation - we have a perfectly fine
> > 0.9.0
> > > > src release. however, it turns out there's trivial cruft in packaging
> > > specs
> > > > requiring a post-0.9.0 commit to generate working binaries (key
> detail
> > -
> > > > commit that does not touch the source)
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:12 PM
> > > > aren't binaries still viewed as "unofficial convenience"?
> > > > iow you can do what you like to it, 'cause it ain't ours
> > > >
> > > > Tony Stevenson ( pctony ) 12:13 PM
> > > > AIUI, yes
> > > > but $AOO etc
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:13 PM
> > > > @rbowen you're a board pony, what say you?
> > > >
> > > > Tony Stevenson ( pctony ) 12:13 PM
> > > > neeeighhhhh
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:13 PM
> > > > apart from neigh, that is
> > > >
> > > > Rich Bowen 12:13 PM
> > > > Hmm. What?
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:14 PM
> > > > bill has a question on ASF binary release policy
> > > >
> > > > Bill Farner 12:14 PM
> > > > details in scrollback, let me know if i've worded poorly :-)
> > > > + Jake's context a few messages before
> > > > concrete example: this line in our rpm spec is incorrect
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/master/build-support/packaging/rpm/aurora.spec#L188
> > > > fixing it does not alter what i'd consider the source code of the
> > > project,
> > > > just the tooling to assemble those sources
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:18 PM
> > > > personally, I would favor burning the release and cutting a new with
> a
> > > > speed vote
> > > > so that people building from source can generate rpms as well
> > > >
> > > > Rich Bowen 12:19 PM
> > > > I'm not certain what the policy would be in this specific case, since
> > > > binary releases aren't official releases for anybody but OO, but I
> > would
> > > > say that if there's a question, you cut another release and fasttrack
> > the
> > > > vote to put it out there, and eliminate any question.
> > > > Which ... appears to be what @Humbedooh just said.
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:20 PM
> > > > 72 hour rule can be voided (under pain of Greg's fists if you do
> > > something
> > > > bad)
> > > >
> > > > Bill Farner 12:20 PM
> > > > so for the end-user, that seems to mean people on different distros
> > could
> > > > have identical software, but be many releases apart if we had to
> > iterate
> > > on
> > > > one distro's packaging
> > > > if so, that scenario seems unfortunate for users
> > > > (or they could be on the same distro for that matter)
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Gruno (Humbedooh) 12:21 PM
> > > > in the end, you can pick whichever solution you want. As @rbowen
> said,
> > > > binaries are not officially ours, but yours
> > > >
> > > > Bill Farner 12:24 PM
> > > > that's good to hear. it's probably best that we remove our rpm/deb
> > > tooling
> > > > from our source distributions to make the separation more clear
> > > > thanks for the insight!
> > > >
> > >
> > > -=Bill
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message