Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 461907
sugar-journal OLPC-3 branch
Last modified: 2008-09-22 15:14:04 EDT
I could not find the original review bug...
Package Change Request
Package Name: sugar-journal
New Branches: OLPC-3
We discussed this in the past and it was decided not to branch for OLPC-3 as it was not needed. Why now is it needed?
you probably discussed it only with Tomeu and Simon.
Our workflow when packaging new releases is:
1 Build it in rawhide.
2 Build it on the OLPC-3 branch.
3 Once in a while, when we have time to and the changes are important/well tested enough, we build in the Fedora 9 branch and push them as updates.
Step 2 is very frequent (every couple days when near to a release), step 3 very infrequent (we might be able to do it every month, but probably longer unless we find volunteers to take care of testing in Fedora 9).
Also sometimes we do build snapshots on the OLPC 3 branch, which are never meant for Fedora.
A) I'm not sure it make sense to build in Fedora 9 every two days, and push the updates only every month or so. Even less to build git snapshots that are never meant for Fedora in F-9.
B) During the unstable development cycle we will build releases for OLPC builds which are never meant to go in the stable Fedora.
C) Having to go through an admin to be able to be able to do a Sugar release (to tag the F-9 build into dist-olpc-whatever) is completely out of question. It slows us down too much.
D) Even if it was possible to do the tagging without admin privileges, I'm not sure it's worth the overhead given the high frequency of 2 and the low frequency of 3.
C is a blocker, I could be convinced about A, B, D but all together they seem pretty good reasons to *not* always build in F-9 to me.