On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:49:06 AM CDT Adam Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 19, 2016 3:31:31 PM CDT Adam Miller wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us>
> >> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:35:17 AM CDT Adam Miller wrote:
> >> >> Hello all,
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a proposal for implementing a solution for releng
> >> >>
> >> >> #6313
> >> >>
> >> >> Currently the compose (pungi) produces an Atomic ostree,
> >> >> ISO,
> >> >> and various cloud images nightly. Those artifacts are then tested
> >> >> AutoCloud. I'm proposing that we add a second "new"
repo, every two
> >> >> weeks
> >> >> we will sync the latest commit from the current repo/ref that has
> >> >> passed
> >> >> testing in AutoCloud then using the corresponding compose,
> >> >> the
> >> >> ISO and various cloud images using the exact same content but
> >> >> to
> >> >> the new remote ref (which we will call
> >> >> fedora-atomic/24/x86_64/stable/docker-host) that is only updated
> >> >> two-weeks. This would be added to the current two-week atomic
> >> >> script instead of impacting pungi or other current processes.
> >> >
> >> > The compose currently does not produce a ostree repo so it owuld have
> >> > to.
> >> > we could achive what you propose today though by tagging the commit
> >> > used
> >> > in the repo with that tag.
> >> Ah ok, I didn't realize the compose wasn't producing an ostree. Is
> >> ostree that's used in the Atomic ISO and cloud/VM images produced
> >> during the compose not from the compose content?
> > The ostree used is produced by bodhi as part of the updates push cycle. We
> > just grab and put in whatever is there.
> Doesn't that defeat part of the point of the compose? I was under the
> impression that the compose was supposed to be able to reproduce all
> it's artifacts from the content within the compose itself, is that
the compose is supposed to be able to reproduce the artifacts of the compose,
the ostree repo is not an artifact of the compose, it is an input to it, the
same as the GA fedora rpm repo and updates rpm repos are. we do not make those
either. because we do not make all the things for the compsoe, because that is
what was requetsed it breaks some of the guarantees we have with the nightly
branched/rawhide and milestone composes. That is what was demanded of us. It
is what we have delivered as a result.
Ah ok, I was mistaken about that then.
I'll need to figure out how to get the exact OSTree commit then and I
can just version it with the compose id anyways since it will still
correlate all said and done.
Otherwise, does this sound like an acceptable approach to everyone?
> rel-eng mailing list