repoinfo.conf and older releases
Kamil Paral
kparal at redhat.com
Thu Sep 23 09:02:21 UTC 2010
----- "James Laska" <jlaska at redhat.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Currently, we don't remove old releases from repoinfo.conf. However,
> we
> do mark some of them (only the dist-fXX entries) as
> 'isactiverelease=no'. This affects some test results in that we
> don't
> have a way to determine what releases are no longer needed for
> testing.
> Specifically, this affects the post-repo-update watcher, and the
> upgradepath test.
>
> For example with upgradepath, we are testing a proposed
> f13-updates-testing package against everything from dist-f10 to
> dist-f15
> (see sample result [1]). While the results from older unmaintained
> releases may be interesting, they shouldn't affect the test outcome.
> Some options to address this ...
>
> 1. Use isactiverelease more - In a recent commit
> (6b3ae44dee122b030bcede1a2059a7533ee8203f), we introduced the
> 'isactiverelease' repoinfo.conf option. This is currently
> only
> used on the unmaintained dist-fNN entires. I'd propose we
> use
> this for all unmaintained repoinfo.conf entries (includes
> -updates and -updates-testing) *and* updating any tests or
> scripts to honor this option.
> 2. Remove (or comment out) unmaintained releases - Certainly an
> option, but my preference is #1 for some reason. But if
> folks
> overwhelmingly feel that just removing older entries is
> ideal ... I can't think of any objections.
>
> Thoughts/concerns/comments?
What is the reason to keep repos of unmaintained released in repoinfo.conf?
I can't find any usage of it. Currently I would just remove all unmaintained
releases and remove 'isactiverelease' keyword as well.
By the way, 'isactiverelease' variable confuses me anyway. Why is Branched
active, but Rawhide inactive? I don't understand that.
We're mixing repos and releases in our repoinfo.conf file. For me it seems
that two different semantics are intertwined in a single file. Not good.
More information about the autoqa-devel
mailing list