Re: repoinfo.conf and older releases

[Kamil Paral]

----- "James Laska"  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.

repoinfo.conf and older releases

[James Laska]

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 05:02 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> ----- "James Laska"  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