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

Fri Nov 28 14:51:57 UTC 2014
Honza Horak <hhorak at redhat.com>

On 11/25/2014 05:32 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
> 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"?

Yes, at least according to my understanding.

Honza

> 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)
>