[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Making updates-testing more useful



Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 12:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Could there be a way to throw everything in the same repo and give the user/installer a choice of how 'well-tested' something should be before installing it? Preferably with a sliding scale instead of just 2 choices. Normally on new installs and machines used explicitly for testing I'd expect people to want the latest changes but become more conservative on machines that are working well and used for important work. The 'well-tested' concept might have factors for age, feedback, emergency overrides, etc.

Take your sliding scale and multiply the various configurations that
have to be generated/tested by each stop on the scale.

I was hoping this could work independently and unless something is replaced with an expedited fix, packages would just age into view.

Lets say for instance that we want to do a new xulrunner, very raw.
Every xulrunner dependent app will have to be built for that version and
included.  Then what if we want to do a new yelp that is pretty well
tested, but not perfect.  Now we have to build one for the well tested
scale stop, and keep the other one (what nvrs to use now?!) at the
untested slot.  Oh for fun, lets throw in something else that yelp
depends on, but is not in the xulrunner set, that is very well tested
and stable.  Now you've got a yelp for the very well tested stop, a yelp
for the medium stop, a yelp with tons of other stuff at the raw stop for
xulrunner.  What NVRs to apply to these, how many different ways can we
assemble packages to test for cohesive deps and upgrade paths, and how
to create a updates system that takes all this into consideration when
poor fred just wants to update his package?

Perhaps I haven't thought it all the way through, but I'd expect most of this to take care of itself via the age factor with the updater ignoring anything that doesn't meet the selection criteria on a package or any dependencies. As long as everything works, you'd just be able to get the same update the bleeding-edge machines got 2 weeks (or...?) ago. The only tricky part would be how to push expedited fixes ahead of the clock because they might drag along massive dependencies, but that should only be done in rare carefully-consdered cases anyway. Negative feedback could just slow the clock down.

But, feel free to start from scratch on a working design that gives control to the end user. I can't help thinking that a version-controlled (git/subversion) package list with tags to give snapshots-in-time would be the ultimate way to do it. That could divorce the tool making the 'risk-factor' decisions from yum itself. You might build a new set of tags daily, recomputing the package lists that should appear in each level of risk and yum would work with the list instead of the repo contents. That would introduce a new workload for the mirrors, though.

One other consideration a new package management scheme needs to turn this into reproducible updates is to remember the repo where each package lives (and understand that you don't know them all ahead of time...).


--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]