Change in Copr retention policy?

[Miroslav Suchý]

Hi,
I would like to open discussion about Copr retention policy change.

Right now we have:

>  How long do you keep the builds? ¶ 
>  We keep the last successful build from each package indefinitely. All
> other builds (old packages, failed builds) are 
deleted after 14 days.

This means that we still have repos for fedora-18-* and epel-5-*.

Is this reasonable? Or are we just wasting storage? According to our logs those
repositories are still accessed (yes
even that fedora-18).

On the other hand, we would like to add more architectures, and this requires even more
space in storage.

Personally, I think that keeping the repositories one year after EOL date is just fine.
That means we delete fedora-24-*
and older and epel-5-*. What do you think?

Do you have a use case for using ancient fedoras repos? What is better for you: to have
ancient fedora repos or to have
more architectures in Copr?

Miroslav

[Ken Dreyer]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Do you have a use case for using ancient fedoras repos? What is
> better for you: to have ancient fedora repos or to have
>  more architectures in Copr? 
More arches for sure.

Even if multi-arch was not a consideration, it seems like a lot of
extra infra load to keep all those old files around for EOL distros.

- Ken

[Fabio Valentini]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:31 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi,
>  I would like to open discussion about Copr retention policy change.
>
>  Right now we have:
>
>  > How long do you keep the builds? ¶
>
>  > We keep the last successful build from each package indefinitely. All other builds
> (old packages, failed builds) are
>  deleted after 14 days.
>
>  This means that we still have repos for fedora-18-* and epel-5-*.
>
>  Is this reasonable? Or are we just wasting storage? According to our logs those
> repositories are still accessed (yes
>  even that fedora-18). 
That's ... interesting.

I'm completely OK with trashing builds that were not built for any
chroot newer than the last EOL'd release (right now, any build that
was built only for f26 and older could be deleted, IMO).

>  On the other hand, we would like to add more architectures, and this
> requires even more space in storage. 
That would be nice, especially for testing package builds on different
arches, where koji scratch builds aren't possible.

>  Personally, I think that keeping the repositories one year after EOL
> date is just fine. That means we delete fedora-24-*
>  and older and epel-5-*. What do you think? 
That change sounds very reasonable. If you ask me, 6 months after EOL
would be more than long enough.

Fabio

> Do you have a use case for using ancient fedoras repos? What is better for you: to
have ancient fedora repos or to have
> more architectures in Copr?
>
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...

[Jan Pazdziora]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 12:30:28PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  
>  This means that we still have repos for fedora-18-* and epel-5-*.
>  
>  Is this reasonable? Or are we just wasting storage? According to our logs those
> repositories are still accessed (yes
>  even that fedora-18). 
It could be it's some version independent noarch content that just
works fine even on latest OSes?

>  Personally, I think that keeping the repositories one year after EOL
> date is just fine. That means we delete fedora-24-*
>  and older and epel-5-*. What do you think? 
Can you use some "hasn't been accessed in the past 180 days" filter
for them, to see how much space could be freed without disrupting
people who for some reason still use the old content?

In any case, it'd be nice to notify the owners of those repos to give
them chance to review what they have and potentially rebuild their
content on newer buildroots, or just mark their repos "alive" and
extend the expiration for another 180 days. Or something to that
effect.

>  Do you have a use case for using ancient fedoras repos? What is
> better for you: to have ancient fedora repos or to have 
From time to time, I start containers as old as Fedora 24 to test some
behaviour -- namely it was the last Fedora where systemd reliably
produced status log in docker, but it's also useful to for checking
regressions.

I don't use copr repos for that but i can imagine there are people who
do.

-- 
Jan Pazdziora
Senior Principal Software Engineer, Security Engineering, Red Hat

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 4.6.2018 v 10:03 Jan Pazdziora napsal(a):
>  In any case, it'd be nice to notify the owners of those repos to
> give
>  them chance to review what they have and potentially rebuild their
>  content on newer buildroots, or just mark their repos "alive" and
>  extend the expiration for another 180 days. Or something to that
>  effect. 
I like this idea.

Miroslav