On 14. 02. 24 15:17, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 5:19 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com > <mailto:ngompa13 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:07 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok at redhat.com > <mailto:mhroncok at redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > What is the planned c10s dist tag scheme? I've noticed many builds use > .el10+3 > > nowadays. Do we plan to ever lower that down to .el10? And if so, how do we > > deal with the fact that .el10+3 > .el10? > > > > I believe the plan is to do a mass rebuild after disconnection to move > to .el10. That will raise the more significant digit (leading number > in the Release field) to make it effectively higher. > > > Neal is correct, but it will be a bit more. > We will bump it once more to .el10+4 today, and do a mass rebuild (Using their > own buildroots, and nothing from ELN). > We expect that will take a week. > We will then change the tag to .el10 and do another mass rebuild. Bumping the more significant digit or not? > In theory, everything should just build. We'll see how that is in practice. > There will be a few more things we'll be doing, but in the end everything > making it into -gate -candidate and -pending will have a .eln10 dist-tag. So basically even if it won't sort correctly, the .el10+X uilds are not intended to be composed/distributed beyond Koji. Do I get that right? --- I was just curious if .el10^X wouldn't sort better (but it is arguably uglier). --- Thank you both for explanations. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok