walters reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` ``` $ ostree pull --depth 50 --commit-metadata-only fedora-atomic:fedora/27/x86_64/atomic-host $ ostree log fedora-atomic:fedora/27/x86_64/atomic-host | tail -20 Date: 2018-01-16 16:35:15 +0000 Version: 27.60 (no subject)
commit d9ec96a8ed7ac4a7c97e5e464953c1b0a3da6bb15b99121fc104a53f82ba5c52 Date: 2018-01-15 16:28:32 +0000 Version: 27.59 (no subject)
commit 460b88235ea65d6f511edd9ff56e135a0960f7c5a6f1afb1b00a870468702f8c Date: 2018-01-13 22:45:43 +0000 Version: 27.58 (no subject)
commit 5bb743ca42f936f7c5ae5aa475153a6d2ce3f44ce363f5fc63233e9b58dfa55c Date: 2018-01-12 14:09:32 +0000 Version: 27.57 (no subject)
<< History beyond this commit not fetched >> ```
This looks broken - we're only supposed to have promoted release commits on the branch right? Did somehow the prod ref get pointed to updates?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/415
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` The way we have it implemented right now is that there are really only two branches: updates and testing. When we do a release we set the stable ref to point to the desired commit in the updates branch. This does have the effect of yielding us a history that includes commits that weren't released, but it also means we can build media (iso/qcow) that are ready for release whenever we choose to put it out.
I'm sure this approach could be improved upon, but this is how we did it when we started to do two week releases and 'slowing down' the ref updates for stable. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/415
walters added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` OK, yeah I must have been confused then. It's a bit unfortunate that the history is pruned for the primary ref though. Anyways...I'm not going to really spend a lot of time fixing it, IMO the future is jigdo. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/415
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following: ``
It's a bit unfortunate that the history is pruned for the primary ref though
I'll get that fixed. We don't sync with `--depth=-1` because it hits NFS real hard and sometimes we end up skipping syncs and then we get missing history. The history exists, just not all commits are synced. I'll ask @puiterwijk to sync it ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/415
The status of the issue: `history incorrect for FAH 27` of project: `atomic-wg` has been updated to: Closed as Invalid by dustymabe.
atomic@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Colin Walters -
Dusty Mabe