[releng] Issue #6620 `Please create infra staging tags`
by Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk
puiterwijk reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
I would like to get $dist-infra-stg tags for $dist in epel6, epel7, f24, f25.
Preferably, the -infra-stg tags would then inherit from their $dist-updates tags, and the corresponding $dist-infra tag would be moved to inherit from $dist-infra-stg.
That way, we can get stuff tagged into -infra-candidate, autosign moves it to -infra-stg, and then the responsible infra member can move stuff over from the -infra-stg to -infra once they feel that update can go into production.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6620
7 years, 3 months
[releng] Issue #6577 `Fedora 26 mass rebuild`
by Carlos O'Donell
codonell added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>
> @codonell I am really confused, your change has
> "Release engineering: In general coordination with release engineering is not required. A mass rebuild is not required. "
> but you demanded that we wait until you are ready for the mass rebuild. it is one or the other, you need it or not.
>
> My apologies this is a mistake in the template. You always need to wait for an ABI-stable glibc. We can ignore this, but then we might suffer serious ABI consquences in a released version of Fedora.
I want to make it clear that I consider it the responsibility of the Fedora glibc team to ensure that everything works smoothly, and we can help iron out any process issues. However, fundamentally, like the kernel, glibc needs to be lined up before the distribution is released.
I have clarified the system-wide change request to read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GLIBC225#Scope
Release engineering: All Fedora releases must be released using a released version of glibc. The Fedora glibc team is responsible for ensuring that Fedora Rawhide stabilizes ABI before a Fedora release, or that after the branch that the Fedora release is rebased (a very small rebase) to the final released version. This is a requirement for Fedora to inherit the ABI and API guarantees provided by upstream. If a mass rebuild is required by glibc or other components, the Fedora glibc team will ensure coordination with release engineering such that a mass rebuild uses the released version of glibc to fix any last minute ABI changes. The GNU C Library (glibc) does not require a mass rebuild for this release.
I will use this as our template text going forward.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6577
7 years, 3 months
[releng] Issue #6577 `Fedora 26 mass rebuild`
by Carlos O'Donell
codonell added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
> @codonell I am really confused, your change has
> "Release engineering: In general coordination with release engineering is not required. A mass rebuild is not required. "
> but you demanded that we wait until you are ready for the mass rebuild. it is one or the other, you need it or not.
My apologies this is a mistake in the template. You always need to wait for an ABI-stable glibc. We can ignore this, but then we might suffer serious ABI consquences in a released version of Fedora.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6577
7 years, 3 months
[releng] Issue #6577 `Fedora 26 mass rebuild`
by Dennis Gilmore
ausil added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@codonell I am really confused, your change has
"Release engineering: In general coordination with release engineering is not required. A mass rebuild is not required. "
but you demanded that we wait until you are ready for the mass rebuild. it is one or the other, you need it or not.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6577
7 years, 3 months
[releng] Issue #6577 `Fedora 26 mass rebuild`
by Dennis Gilmore
ausil added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@jkurik then it can not be a factor or consideration in the mass rebuild as that deadline passed already, it may just be semantics. However we need to do better about making sure that we report correctly what is needing the mass rebuild. half the changes we have listed are only listed because I went though all of the changes and plucked them out. they had working like "releng does not need to do anything as a mass rebuild is already planned"
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6577
7 years, 3 months