[arch-general] Fw: [arch-dev-public] [staging] repository: Let's give it a try!
Forward Rationale: To give end users (and potential devs) an opportunity to discuss this too. On 11-08-2010 16:29, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi devs,
my last attempt for this didn't get much feedback so I try to keep it short this time...for more details see the old thread at: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2010-May/016770.html
This time I am just asking to give it a try. It's implementation is trivial and if we feel it wont work out we could easily remove it later. If there are no real objections I'd like to implement this soon; let's say next week. Even if you don't see the benefit right now I would be pleased to at least give it a try.
The idea can be summed up like this:
testing: * don't break packages intentionally * don't push incomplete rebuilds
This would definitely get me interested in Testing. Right now my Linux knowledge is limited and thus Testing is a no-go zone. If however I could have a guarantee that Testing offers the same package sanity insurance of the other mirrors, I could start participating.
staging: * a global staging repository for collaboration its more similar to your ~/staging dir than a regular repository * mostly meant for incomplete rebuilds * will be excluded from mirroring (for now)
I am open for any questions or suggestions. Thanks for reading,
Pierre
It needs to be said that this is also reflection of what one should expect to encounter in the development process in the wild. Apart from the potential for collaboration, the idea that the Arch repos could mimic this development cycle is very appealing to me. __________________________ | | V V Development <-> Staging <-> Testing -> Release Packaging maintenance is taken away from the end user, giving them "safe" (it's still a beta, hence the quotes) access to Testing. Meanwhile developers would separate packaging from Testing, considerably giving them a lot more control over what users can access from Testing.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:41:06 +0100, Mario Figueiredo <mario.figueiredo@quiettech.org> wrote:
Forward Rationale: To give end users (and potential devs) an
The idea can be summed up like this:
testing: * don't break packages intentionally * don't push incomplete rebuilds
This would definitely get me interested in Testing. Right now my Linux knowledge is limited and thus Testing is a no-go zone. If however I could have a guarantee that Testing offers the same package sanity insurance of the other mirrors, I could start participating.
In that case testing wont still be for you. There wont be any guarantee for testing and some pacakges might be just broken. The only thing you can expect that we wont break testing _by intention_ due to moving incomplete rebuilds in.
staging: * a global staging repository for collaboration its more similar to your ~/staging dir than a regular repository * mostly meant for incomplete rebuilds * will be excluded from mirroring (for now)
I am open for any questions or suggestions. Thanks for reading,
Pierre
It needs to be said that this is also reflection of what one should expect to encounter in the development process in the wild. Apart from the potential for collaboration, the idea that the Arch repos could mimic this development cycle is very appealing to me.
__________________________ | | V V Development <-> Staging <-> Testing -> Release
Packaging maintenance is taken away from the end user, giving them "safe" (it's still a beta, hence the quotes) access to Testing. Meanwhile developers would separate packaging from Testing, considerably giving them a lot more control over what users can access from Testing.
Staging is not a new repo/layer between the developer and testing. It's just meant to be a temporary storage for rebuilds. The current dev. cycle wont be affected. So we'll still have: dev->extra dev->testing->core -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
On 11-08-2010 18:03, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:41:06 +0100, Mario Figueiredo <mario.figueiredo@quiettech.org> wrote:
This would definitely get me interested in Testing. Right now my Linux knowledge is limited and thus Testing is a no-go zone. If however I could have a guarantee that Testing offers the same package sanity insurance of the other mirrors, I could start participating.
In that case testing wont still be for you. There wont be any guarantee for testing and some pacakges might be just broken. The only thing you can expect that we wont break testing _by intention_ due to moving incomplete rebuilds in.
Well, that was precisely my point, wasn't it? Testing implies bugged application builds. What it should however not imply is broken packages.
It needs to be said that this is also reflection of what one should expect to encounter in the development process in the wild. Apart from the potential for collaboration, the idea that the Arch repos could mimic this development cycle is very appealing to me.
__________________________ | | V V Development<-> Staging<-> Testing -> Release
Packaging maintenance is taken away from the end user, giving them "safe" (it's still a beta, hence the quotes) access to Testing. Meanwhile developers would separate packaging from Testing, considerably giving them a lot more control over what users can access from Testing.
Staging is not a new repo/layer between the developer and testing. It's just meant to be a temporary storage for rebuilds. The current dev. cycle wont be affected. So we'll still have: dev->extra dev->testing->core
Aren't you contradicting yourself? Unless you don't plan to use staging, you won't risk anymore having broken rebuilds on testing.
2010/8/12 Mario Figueiredo <mario.figueiredo@quiettech.org>
On 11-08-2010 18:03, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:41:06 +0100, Mario Figueiredo <mario.figueiredo@quiettech.org> wrote:
This would definitely get me interested in Testing. Right now my Linux knowledge is limited and thus Testing is a no-go zone. If however I could have a guarantee that Testing offers the same package sanity insurance of the other mirrors, I could start participating.
In that case testing wont still be for you. There wont be any guarantee for testing and some pacakges might be just broken. The only thing you can expect that we wont break testing _by intention_ due to moving incomplete rebuilds in.
Well, that was precisely my point, wasn't it? Testing implies bugged application builds. What it should however not imply is broken packages.
[testing] implies bugged application builds /and/ broken packages. That's the point of [testing] to identify broken packages before they go to [core].
It needs to be said that this is also reflection of what one should expect to encounter in the development process in the wild. Apart from the potential for collaboration, the idea that the Arch repos could mimic this development cycle is very appealing to me.
__________________________ | | V V Development<-> Staging<-> Testing -> Release
Packaging maintenance is taken away from the end user, giving them "safe" (it's still a beta, hence the quotes) access to Testing. Meanwhile developers would separate packaging from Testing, considerably giving them a lot more control over what users can access from Testing.
Staging is not a new repo/layer between the developer and testing. It's just meant to be a temporary storage for rebuilds. The current dev. cycle wont be affected. So we'll still have: dev->extra dev->testing->core
Aren't you contradicting yourself? Unless you don't plan to use staging, you won't risk anymore having broken rebuilds on testing.
No, but there can still be broken packages in [testing].
participants (3)
-
Guillaume Brunerie
-
Mario Figueiredo
-
Pierre Schmitz