Bug 461907 - sugar-journal OLPC-3 branch
Summary: sugar-journal OLPC-3 branch
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-09-11 10:42 UTC by Marco Pesenti Gritti
Modified: 2008-09-22 19:14 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-09-22 19:14:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Marco Pesenti Gritti 2008-09-11 10:42:11 UTC
I could not find the original review bug...

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: sugar-journal
New Branches: OLPC-3

Comment 1 Kevin Fenzi 2008-09-11 19:29:43 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 2 Dennis Gilmore 2008-09-11 21:25:53 UTC
Marco, 

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?

Comment 3 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2008-09-12 08:32:15 UTC
Dennis,

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.

Now:

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.