8:06 a.m.
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 05:02 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Currently, we don't remove old releases from repoinfo.conf. However,
> we
> do mark some of them (only the dist-fXX entries) as
> 'isactiverelease=no'. This affects some test results in that we
> don't
> have a way to determine what releases are no longer needed for
> testing.
> Specifically, this affects the post-repo-update watcher, and the
> upgradepath test.
>
> For example with upgradepath, we are testing a proposed
> f13-updates-testing package against everything from dist-f10 to
> dist-f15
> (see sample result [1]). While the results from older unmaintained
> releases may be interesting, they shouldn't affect the test outcome.
> Some options to address this ...
>
> 1. Use isactiverelease more - In a recent commit
> (6b3ae44dee122b030bcede1a2059a7533ee8203f), we introduced the
> 'isactiverelease' repoinfo.conf option. This is currently
> only
> used on the unmaintained dist-fNN entires. I'd propose we
> use
> this for all unmaintained repoinfo.conf entries (includes
> -updates and -updates-testing) *and* updating any tests or
> scripts to honor this option.
> 2. Remove (or comment out) unmaintained releases - Certainly an
> option, but my preference is #1 for some reason. But if
> folks
> overwhelmingly feel that just removing older entries is
> ideal ... I can't think of any objections.
>
> Thoughts/concerns/comments?
What is the reason to keep repos of unmaintained released in repoinfo.conf?
I can't find any usage of it. Currently I would just remove all unmaintained
releases and remove 'isactiverelease' keyword as well.
Hmm, yeah. I don't know why I like keeping the old entries around. But
it does seem silly to continue with old entries that don't work. Let's
just drop f10 and f11 from repoinfo.conf.
By the way, 'isactiverelease' variable confuses me anyway.
Why is Branched
active, but Rawhide inactive? I don't understand that.
While it's not 100% clear from the mail thread or the commit log on this
subject, I understand that the 'isactiverelease' was added to indicate
what entries has install images available. Wwoods can confirm. Iirc,
post-tree-compose was failing because install images are no longer built
and provided for rawhide (and for EOL'd releases [1]). According to the
comment in repoinfo.py,
getreleases() - '''Return the list of known, non-EOL
releases.'''
Using that definition, Rawhide isn't a Fedora release as installation
images are not provided. Rawhide is just a repository of packages. I
wonder if it makes sense to rename 'isactiverelease' to 'isinstallable'?
We're mixing repos and releases in our repoinfo.conf file. For me
it seems
that two different semantics are intertwined in a single file. Not good.
That is the source for my confusion whenever we fiddle with repoinfo. I
created a wiki page to help remind me how to properly work with this
file as Fedora progresses [2]. Looks like I need to update to this to
remove EOL'd entries as well.
[1] Note this would be solved by removing EOL'd releases.
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_update_AutoQA_repoinfo.conf
Thanks,
James