[CentOS-devel] Proposal for CentOS dist-git design

Tue Nov 25 16:32:33 UTC 2014
Pat Riehecky <riehecky at fnal.gov>

On 11/25/2014 10:07 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
> On 11/25/2014 09:47 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>> On 11/25/2014 09:30 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> this is related to the new SCL SIG [1], which is supposed to bring SCL
>>> development into CentOS, which is supposed to become upstream for
>>> Software Collections.
>>>
>>> I've promised I'd look at how dist-git could look like on CentOS side,
>>> since we want to start keeping source code for SCLs under CentOS soon.
>>>
>>> So, [2] is a proposal -- please, take a look at it, so we have
>>> something to start with. Let's see if it is feasible.
>>>
>>> We can also move it to CentOS wiki, which would be more appropriate
>>> place for it, but I cannot figure out a where I have permissions to
>>> add some new content to.
>>>
>>> More information about Software Collections concepts is available at [3].
>>>
>>> What next? I think we should gather some feedback on this proposal,
>>> try to figure out open questions there. Then we will pick up some
>>> software collection and create some PoC build from CentOS dist-git.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Honza
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo
>>> [2]
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal
>>> [3] https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/docs/guide/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CentOS-devel mailing list
>>> CentOS-devel at centos.org
>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>> My primary concern with [2] is how it integrates with the existing SCLs
>> withing git.c.o.  [4]
> The existing (rhscl)SCL code on g.c.o won't change. This would add new
> branches to existing packages, and create some new packages with scl-*
> branch names unless they find their way into rhscl as well. The C6, C7
> branch names are protected.
>
>> As a downstream consumer, I would prefer not to rebuild my workflow.
> With this method, you shouldn't have to.
>
>
>> [4] a few quick examples:
>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!mysql55-mysql
>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!nodejs010-nodejs-mongodb
>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!postgresql92-postgresql
>> https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!python33-mod_wsgi
>>
> As I understand it, these would get a branch name like scl-mysql55 where
> the software-collections.org maintainers would have branch level commit
> access. Things in the c7 branch would be left untouched.
>
> Does that help to answer your questions? Does this method impact your
> current workflow?
>

I may be reading it incorrectly, but my reading of [5] has, for example 
the mysql55 collection, branched off of 'mysql' whereas the existing 
RHSCL is branched off of 'mysql55-mysql'.

Would these repos be under a different "git.c.o Project"?

Right now I just track 'c7' and (eventually) 'c6'/'c5'.

With the existing RHSCL packages in a 'c7' branch, though they are not 
built, I guess I'm mostly reaching for something on the RHSCL package 
repo/nameing/branch/etc as it relates to the SCL SIG.  While I know the 
aim of this SIG right now is just about upstream scl.org, I'm trying to 
get the big picture as the parts inter-relate.


I'm not opposed to workflow adjustment for cleaner 
repo/branch/namespace/thing on git.c.o, right now we use 
centos.git.repolist.py from centos-git-common.

Pat


[5] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal#Repositories_naming 
   (and following)

-- 
Pat Riehecky

Scientific Linux developer
http://www.scientificlinux.org/