9:48 a.m.
dustymabe reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
We have just started running bodhi updates via pungi (woo!!). One of the reasons the
Atomic team has been helping drive this initiative is so that we can get better versioning
of our ostrees output by fedora (via pungi).
When we started doing the runs we added a label to them of the form:
`Update-20171025.1312`. Which translates into an ostree version of
`27_Update.20171025.1312`. The atomic working group had previously got together and
[decided](https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/229) that a versioning scheme like
`27.2017025.0` would be what we went with for better versioning for ostrees. This scheme
was discussed with releng (including dennis) and also added as an RFE to pungi, which was
implemented by @lsedlar in [PR](https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/592).
With the updates run we can get the desired version if we provide `--no-label` to pungi
instead of actually giving it a label. This warrants the question: "what is the value
of the label for an updates run?". Do we need it? What is it used for?
If we don't need it then I'd love to just use `--no-label`. If we do need it then
we'll have to implement another smart versioning macro for ostrees in pungi.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
12:16 p.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
From the meeting discussion today statements from @mikeb and @lsedlar
```
13:09:39 mbonnet | I don't think we have any dependency on update labels
though
13:10:05 lsedlar | PDC could import composes without label fine, it already has
nighlies without a label
```
We might need input from @ralph and @ausil on this one. @ralph, @ausil, can you please
comment on this ticket?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
7:52 a.m.
ralph added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
:+1: As I understand it, labels are meant to signify special composes like "this one
is the Beta" or "this one is RC 9000". The updates composes individually
aren't special - they're *all* updates composes. So, I vote for ``--no-label``.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
12:28 p.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
from today's releng meeting:
```
13:27:25 mboddu | #info We are waiting on dgilmore input, so we are going to punt
this for next week
```
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
3:30 a.m.
ausil added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
as the atomic composes are not really updates but new releases we probably should use
--label RC-<date stamp>.X as we did previously
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
9:38 a.m.
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
The version that people want for Atomic trees is implemented in
https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/791#.
As soon as a new Pungi release is made, we can switch to using that generator, and that
will ignore the label.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
9:55 a.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
This doesn't help us if we ever add Atomic qcow image creation to the actual updates
compose (which would be nice). The image names will have some form of
`Update-20171025.1312` in the name where the ostree will have the `27.2017025.0` version.
Can you explain what the label is used for for updates composes? No one that I have talked
to included the last 3 releng meetings knows why they are needed.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
9:58 a.m.
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Well, for images there are the `image_name_format` and `image_volid_formats` parameters
where we can tweak that.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
10 a.m.
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Something like this should do the trick: `image_name_format =
'%(release_short)s-%(variant)s-%(disc_type)s-%(arch)s-%(version)s-%(date)s.%(respin)s.iso'`
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
10:02 a.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@puiterwijk - can you 100% confirm that (maybe with a test updates run in stage that also
creates a ostree and a qcow)?
If so we can put this to rest.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
10:03 a.m.
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@dustymabe - I will do so as soon as I get home (in about 4 hours or so). Will comment
back when I have the answer.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
10:07 a.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@dustymabe - I will do so as soon as I get home (in about 4 hours or
so). Will comment back when I have the answer.
thanks!
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
3:49 p.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
so now that we are producing f28 updates-testing content using bodhi with
`"version": "!OSTREE_VERSION_FROM_LABEL_DATE_TYPE_RESPIN",`. We can
see that the version that gets generated is not what we want:
```
ostree show fedora/28/x86_64/testing/atomic-host
commit 14f21d3e994370d5b8bb5e938f343cb20ff930fb76489ec29d572249463d8a8c
Date: 2018-03-13 14:46:57 +0000
Version: 28_Update.20180313.1420
(no subject)
Found 1 signature:
Signature made Tue 13 Mar 2018 02:47:04 PM UTC using RSA key ID E08E7E629DB62FB1
Can't check signature: public key not found
```
I think we want `28_Update.20180313.1420` to be more like `28.20180313.n.0` for testing
and `28.20180313.0` for updates. We can do something other than `.n.` for testing, but
that's just one example.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
8:14 a.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
We should probably switch to use the `'!RELEASE_FROM_VERSION_COMPOSE_ID'` so we
can test what ostree versions get output with that code.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
8:24 a.m.
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Note that Bodhi is still using `OSTREE_VERSION_FROM_LABEL_DATE_TYPE_RESPIN`, while I
explicitly added `VERSION_FROM_VERSION_DATE_RESPIN` to do what you wanted.
So the Pungi code is there, but Bodhi config needs updating.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
8:31 a.m.
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I can predict what the `RELEASE_FROM_VERSION_COMPOSE_ID` version would be:
`Fedora-28-updates-testing-20180314.0`.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
8:46 a.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
ok. I know there were a few iterations on adding an appropriate version macro to pungi so
I wasn't sure which one we wanted to use. Is the proposal to use
`!VERSION_FROM_VERSION_DATE_RESPIN` for ostree version and `image_name_format =
'%(release_short)s-%(variant)s-%(disc_type)s-%(arch)s-%(version)s-%(date)s.%(respin)s.iso'`
for the imagebuilds?
Can we add an AtomicHost image_build and ISO creation to the f28-u-t run so we can test
out to see if we get expected results?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
9:46 a.m.
The status of the issue: `proposal to run bodhi updates pungi composes with `--no-label``
of project: `releng` has been updated to: Closed as Fixed by syeghiay.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
10:25 a.m.
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
thanks. yes this was done in f28 cycle. Thanks everyone
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7113
1981
days inactive
2371
days old
rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org
18 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Dusty Mabe
-
Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk
-
Ralph Bean
-
Suzanne Yeghiayan