Infrastructure repo

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:14:37 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:

> We can probably age out and discard those SRPMS as well... I do try
> to clean out old releases for fas and pkgdb, for instance.

I was thinking more for the historical record if we needed it. 
Ie, someone needs to know what fas version we used at time X and what
was in that package. If we have the srpm and timestamp we could examine
it. In practice I doubt it would come up much, especially if those
packages don't have any local patches, just newer versions... 

> I do tend to keep at least one older version around -- I suppose that
> we could just do that in the SRPM repo and only keep newest in the
> RPM repo... although the primary reason to keep older packages is to
> be able to revert within the first week or so of a new release in
> case something is wrong with an update.  Quick reversion means having
> the last binary packages stick around.

Yeah. Keeping one old one around seems reasonable. 

> > * Once per cycle we clean out the i386/x86_64 packages that are no
> >   longer installed on any machine.
> > 
> +1
> 
> > (As a side note, I am thinking we should setup a Housekeeping SOP
> > for once per cycle a few weeks after release... we can then do
> > this, prune people who don't need to be in sysadmin groups anymore,
> > prune hosted projects or lists, etc. Of course thats another
> > topic). 
> 
> Also +1.

Draft here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_post_release_housekeeping

will clean up and try and get it to the point of discussing. ;) 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20110413/4d424cf5/attachment.bin