[Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Gluster Test Thursday - Release 3.9

[Niels de Vos]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 12:11 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:51:47AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2016 06:46 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Aravinda <avishwan at redhat.com
> >>> <mailto:avishwan at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     Hi,
> >>>
> >>>     Since Automated test framework for Gluster is in progress, we need
> >>>     help from Maintainers and developers to test the features and bug
> >>>     fixes to release Gluster 3.9.
> >>>
> >>>     In last maintainers meeting Shyam shared an idea about having a Test
> >>>     day to accelerate the testing and release.
> >>>
> >>>     Please participate in testing your component(s) on Oct 27, 2016. We
> >>>     will prepare the rc2 build by tomorrow and share the details before
> >>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>     Test day.
> >>>
> >>>     RC1 Link:
> >>>     http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2016-September/001442.html
> >>>     <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2016-September/001442.html>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think testing RC1 would be ideal as 3.9 head has moved forward
> >>> with significant number of patches. I'd recommend of having an RC2 here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> BTW, please tag RC2 as 3.9.0rc2 (versus 3.9rc2).  It makes building
> >> packages for Fedora much easier.
> >>
> >> I know you were following what was done for 3.8rcX. That was a pain. :-}
> > 
> > Can you explain what the problem is with 3.9rc2 and 3.9.0? The huge
> > advantage is that 3.9.0 is seen as a version update to 3.9rc2. When
> > 3.9.0rc2 is used, 3.9.0 is *not* an update for that, and rc2 packages
> > will stay installed until 3.9.1 is released...
> > 
> > You can check this easily with the rpmdev-vercmp command:
> > 
> >    $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.9.0rc2 3.9.0
> >    3.9.0rc2 > 3.9.0
> >    $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.9rc2 3.9.0
> >    3.9rc2 < 3.9.0
> 
> Those aren't really very realistic RPM NVRs IMO.
> 
> > 
> > So, at least for RPM packaging, 3.9rc2 is recommended, and 3.9.0rc2 is
> > problematic.
> 
> That's not the only thing recommended.
> 
> Last I knew, one of several things that are recommended is, e.g.,
> 3.9.0-0.2rc2; 3.9.0-1 > 3.9.0-0.2rc2.

Yes, we can add a 0. in the release field of the RPMs. That works fine,
but needs manual adoption of the .spec and is not done by the scripts we
have that get called from 'make -C extras/LinuxRPM glusterrpms'. This
means that RPMs build from the source (what developers do) and nightly
builds need to be treated differently.

> The RC (and {qa,alpha,beta}) packages (that I've) built for Fedora for
> several years have had NVRs in that form.
> 
> This scheme was what was suggested to me on the fedora-devel mailing
> list several years ago.

Indeed, and this is common for Fedora packages. Maybe we should adapt
that in our community RPMs too.

> When RCs are tagged as 3.9rc1, then I have to make non-trivial and
> counter-intuitive changes to the .spec file to build packages with NVRs
> like 3.9.0-0.XrcY. If they are tagged 3.9.0rc1 then the changes much
> more straight forward and much simpler.

Yes, that is, if you want to have the 3.9.0 version, and do not like to
take the 3.9rc2 version directly.

We probably should address the pre-release tagging in our build scripts,
so that the next release can easily be tagged v3.10.0rc1 or such.

Thanks!
Niels
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20161026/f2114f7b/attachment.sig>