FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2008, 06:08 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 19:12 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> Ok. You still haven't explained what checks were done, especially
> between pending and stable or testing.
>
> > The main reason we haven't inserted any automated QA is that to get a
> > correct picture of what the distro would look like with that update
> > added takes a full compose, to ensure we get the right view of multilib,
> > and that we don't have an older copy of the package update floating in
> > repos resolving deps it shouldn't, etc... The compose process itself is
> > extremely time and resource consuming and it unfortunately hasn't been
> > as high of a priority to tackle as it should have been.
>
> Right. This is a good reason, especially if compose takes one day. Still
> it doesn't explain the other delays. I still can't see what takes time
> besides composing, nor why there is a pending state.


I guess I'm not fully understanding your question.

A user submits an update to bodhi, and when they are satisfied that they
have all the builds added correctly and that the text is right, they
request it be pushed either to testing, or to stable. After that the
only delay is the time it takes for me, the pusher, to handle the
pending requests.

The checks are quite simple in bodhi I do believe, I think it just
checks to make sure what you requested is tagged appropriately at the
time of request. The rest of it is left up to users of updates-testing
to report any problems to the maintainer, either through bugzilla or
bodhi karma, or both.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 06:19 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 19:12 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> >
> > Right. This is a good reason, especially if compose takes one day. Still
> > it doesn't explain the other delays. I still can't see what takes time
> > besides composing, nor why there is a pending state.
>
> request it be pushed either to testing, or to stable. After that the
> only delay is the time it takes for me, the pusher, to handle the
> pending requests.
>
> The checks are quite simple in bodhi I do believe, I think it just
> checks to make sure what you requested is tagged appropriately at the
> time of request.

I guess that it is that part that I would like to be skipped, such that
there is no need of any checking, and the update goes straigth to
testing or stable, without being even in pending state.

I know that not all packages have dist tags, but shouldn't dist tag be
enough to discriminate faulty tags? Packages without dist tag would then
be checked manually.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 06:32 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 20:19 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I guess that it is that part that I would like to be skipped, such that
> there is no need of any checking, and the update goes straigth to
> testing or stable, without being even in pending state.
>
> I know that not all packages have dist tags, but shouldn't dist tag be
> enough to discriminate faulty tags? Packages without dist tag would then
> be checked manually.

er, this time period is I do believe less than a second, and it's done
automatically by bodhi when you make the request. It just fails the
request if the tag isn't correct.

The pending state is there because people often work on an update
request at multiple times, and want to be able to add to it and adjust
it before doing the final push request, and also from a app code point
of view I think the update object has to have one form of existence
outside of either push requested or pushed.

So again, I think we're misunderstanding each other. What problem are
you trying to solve?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 07:06 PM
drago01
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

2008/11/26 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 20:19 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> So again, I think we're misunderstanding each other. What problem are
> you trying to solve?
If I got it correctly then he wants that packages hit the repo as soon
as possible without any delays. That means that he bodhi should start
the compose process right after the update has been submitted.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 07:26 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 21:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> If I got it correctly then he wants that packages hit the repo as soon
> as possible without any delays. That means that he bodhi should start
> the compose process right after the update has been submitted.

Why should it do that and make every other update wait? Also, that's
not possible until we have some form of automated signing.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 08:32 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:32:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > be checked manually.
>
> er, this time period is I do believe less than a second, and it's done
> automatically by bodhi when you make the request. It just fails the
> request if the tag isn't correct.

Ok.

> The pending state is there because people often work on an update
> request at multiple times, and want to be able to add to it and adjust
> it before doing the final push request,

Who want that? In any case it should be optional. My update waited in
pending state for 2 days. These are 2 days wasted.

> and also from a app code point
> of view I think the update object has to have one form of existence
> outside of either push requested or pushed.

But it could be instantaneous.

> So again, I think we're misunderstanding each other. What problem are
> you trying to solve?

When I ask for pushing to testing (or directly to stable), it should land
into testing or stable as soon as possible without ever being pending.

Or maybe I misunderstood something, and the pending state is there until
compose was finished?

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 10:29 PM
Till Maas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed November 26 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> I guess that it is that part that I would like to be skipped, such that
> there is no need of any checking, and the update goes straigth to
> testing or stable, without being even in pending state.

I hope I understood everything correctly: The pending state indicates that
either the composing process currently runs or that it needs to be started.
Does this help you?

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 11:30 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:29:06AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed November 26 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> > I guess that it is that part that I would like to be skipped, such that
> > there is no need of any checking, and the update goes straigth to
> > testing or stable, without being even in pending state.
>
> I hope I understood everything correctly: The pending state indicates that
> either the composing process currently runs or that it needs to be started.
> Does this help you?

Indeed. So right after pending, the update pushed to stable should be in
stable. While if passing through testing it is once in pending while
testing is composing, then the maintainer can push it to stable, then it
is waiting for the next compose, and is then in a (hidden) pending
state before reaching stable.

So in the end the time of entering in a repo from a state to another is
about 2 days, one day waiting for the previous compose and another for
the compose the package is in itself.

For my package it should then have lasted about 4 days, but it was
streched to 8 for the reasons Jesse explained.

Still 2 days is quite a long time to wait, but I can't see a way
to shorten that time, except with a shortened compose time.

I guess there is no other way than taking koji builds for pepople in a
hurry.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-27-2008, 03:07 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:32 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> Or maybe I misunderstood something, and the pending state is there until
> compose was finished?

Pending state is there until the compose is finished. The compose
starts when I manually start it, which I'm trying to do once a day or
once every other day.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-27-2008, 06:42 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:32:15 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:32:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > be checked manually.
> >
> > er, this time period is I do believe less than a second, and it's done
> > automatically by bodhi when you make the request. It just fails the
> > request if the tag isn't correct.
>
> Ok.
>
> > The pending state is there because people often work on an update
> > request at multiple times, and want to be able to add to it and adjust
> > it before doing the final push request,
>
> Who want that? In any case it should be optional. My update waited in
> pending state for 2 days. These are 2 days wasted.
>
> > and also from a app code point
> > of view I think the update object has to have one form of existence
> > outside of either push requested or pushed.
>
> But it could be instantaneous.

Only on the master download server. For the world-wide mirrors (and their
users), it still won't be instantaneous. Unless you create a system
where the master can call back to mirrors and request them to sync.

I see the benefit of being able to publish [security] updates quickly
(such as with the old extras/epel scripts, although the createrepo time
added up there, too), but the more packagers push pkgs instantly, the more
often the master repo (and the metadata) changes, and the more quickly the
entire distribution moves under the feet of our users. I don't think it is
a good idea to do that. A queue that controls the flow of non-security
packages creates less mirroring chaos.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org