----- "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.
By the way, 'isactiverelease' variable confuses me anyway. Why is Branched
active, but Rawhide inactive? I don't understand that.
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.