Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
An improved workflow for maintaining Salt #96
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
An improved workflow for maintaining Salt #96
Changes from 4 commits
a8616ca
b8bc52b
69aa9fe
350a21f
c81cd74
c342ef2
1abc6b0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain how the structure applies to these projects concretely? I would have thought
products:testing
orproducts:next
don't need a separategithub
subproject.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm, actually for
products
we don't really needed, as we just copypac whatever is inproducts:testing
toproducts
.But for
products:testing
andproducts:next
I will also consider thegithub
structure, to be able to have different Salt versions if necessary ensuring those packages are also ready to be consumed (even if those are never be directly released) but we would prevent enabled services can run unexpectely on targets that are linked toproducts:testing
andproducts:next
(like i.a. Uyuni:Master or D:G:M:*)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to make is clear, any patch that we want to apply on top of salt code base should go to this folder
pkg/suse/
right?So basically you are moving all the content from the github project
openSUSE/salt-packaging
(subfolder salt) to this noewpkg/suse
folder (at the start we will not have patches since we start from the same base as upstream)?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really. We won't be carrying patch files anymore in our new OBS packages, as any code change will automatically inside the source tarball by the
obs_scm
integration.The exception to this would be EMBARGOED bugs, where we cannot proceed publicly via GitHub, so we will put a patch file manually in IBS than will be removed the bug is public and we push the changes to GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A side question; currently, we have a lot of commits that are not in upstream, due to various reasons. With
salt-packaging
, we can easily check which patches are in upstream, and which patches are not. With removing the patch workflow, we're losing this insight.Do you perceive this as a problem? Are we still sticking with the "fork & cherrypick commits" development style, or are we moving towards rebasing more frequently?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a good point! We should probably want to have a way to easily identify what is upstreamed and what is not.
I'll elaborate this a bit on the RFC text. Thanks for the note 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thank you @m-czernek , that was exactly my concern when I made the comment. Commits that are not yet upstrem, and currently are maintained on salt-packaging project.
We we start merging commit to our salt project that are not merge upstream yet, it can make it harder to integrate upstream version and know what is merge already or not.
@meaksh thank you for look into this topic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this work for the different changelogs we currently maintain in parallel?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I missed to cover on the current proposal our requirement on maintaining different changelogs for the different target codestream we maintain.
I'll add some more text to cover these cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we also merging the changelog like we do in Uyuni or do we need to resolve merge conflicts manually?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we have the
_multibuild
in git as well?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm, indeed probably yes. I'll check and adjust this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
branch
is maybe not the best term, it suggest a temporary package that's submitted back after changes.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll rephrase this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was not aware we used an
openSUSE/devel/master
branch. Is this a new branch we will use?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I used
openSUSE/devel/master
here just as an example, it should point to the eventualopenSUSE/release/3008.x
branch. I'll fix this on the RFC text.Currently
openSUSE/devel/master
is just the devel branch I created with upstreammaster
branch + our patches partially rebased on top (excluding patches to extensions).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To me it sounds like a conceptual problem using services to sync the sources. An alternative we could at least look at is using src.opensuse.org as the git forge (according to https://openbuildservice.org/help/manuals/obs-user-guide/cha-obs-scm-bridge#sec-obs-obs-scm-bridge-update-notifications this does not require a _service to sync the sources)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm, interesting. I'll give it a try 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This has been part of the other RFC, but for me it's still not so clear that we can have "builtin extensions". How do we publish these to PyPI from the main repository? How do we get them to show up on https://extensions.saltproject.io/?