Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-01-07)

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:48:16 +0100
Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dne 14.1.2015 v 00:24 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a):
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:58:51 -0700
> > Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:50:06 -0700
> > > Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> You forgot "too many packages?" There are 15842 packages in
> > >> Fedora 21 and 16230 in Rawhide. That is a lot of packages that
> > >> have to be rebuilt possibly multiple times due to FTBFS, multiple
> > >> architectures, etc.
> > >>
> > >> 2.5 weeks is 25200 minutes. That means a mass rebuild is doing
> > >> 0.6 packages a minute across 3 architectures. That is pretty
> > >> darn fast
> >
> > > The Fedora 21 mass rebuild took about 40 hours. ;)
> >
> > > That's really not the reason for more time, its the fallout from
> > > that. When the mass rebuild is tagged in, sometimes there's
> > > things broken in the build root, those need humans to look at and
> > > fix. Then, there are all the packages that didn't build for
> > > whatever reason, those need humans to look at them and fix them
> > > up. The ones with broken deps need fixing, etc.
> >
> > > So, while the mass rebuild itself is less than 2 days, it takes a
> > > while to stablize things after that. If we branched right after
> > > the mass rebuild we would have to then stablize both rawhide and
> > > f22.
> >
> > > It's hard to say how much time we really need there... it depends
> > > on how much stuff got broken, how hard it is to fix and how much
> > > time maintainers have to fix things.
> >
> > right. in the past the building took around a week or a bit more, we
> > have gotten that down. which is why I said we could drop the 4
> > weeks to 3. the time consuming part is the cleanup and fixing of
> > issues. that needs people. If everything is perfect a week could
> > well be sufficient. Ideally we want secondary arches to be done in
> > the window as well. just to make sure that there is no fallout on
> > them requiring a second rebuild. which could also happen on
> > primary. we have had ABI issues etc in the past on all arches.
> >
> > Dennis
> 
> What I would love to see is to leave out the packages which are build
> in side tag from mass rebuild.
> 
> E.g. if I have side tag for Ruby, I rebuild every package in the side
> tag in two weeks before mass rebuild, I can hardly see any
> justification to build them once again (unless there lands gcc in the
> man time or something like this). So if you could exclude the
> packages which are already build in side tag from mass rebuild, it
> would help you with following merge and it would give me additional
> time to rebuild Ruby packages.
> 
> Is something like this feasible?

It really depends on a lot of things. like does gcc 5 land after you
have started your builds? we can go about excluding things viaa few
different means. but it all really depends on a bunch of currently
unknown factors.

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=gxJf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----