ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For the plan to deliver the phone RTM from a derived "ubuntu-rtm"
> distribution, we'll need to use a different set of silo PPAs, since PPAs
> are attached to a particular distribution (which is clearer now that the
> PPA URL format has been changed to include the distribution name).
> Although there are a few remaining bits, Launchpad has mostly now been
> extended to cope with non-Ubuntu PPAs, and it's time to think about how
> we're going to handle this in CI Train.
>
> We probably just want to create another 20 silos for ubuntu-rtm once it
> exists.  The open questions are how to refer to them, and how to arrange
> to land things in them.  In the remainder of this mail I will refer to
> PPAs consistently using their new ~OWNER/DISTRIBUTION/NAME scheme in an
> attempt to minimise confusion.
>
> Note that Didier indicated in
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2014-June/002898.html
> that he thought the changes to cupstream2distro itself would be pretty
> straightforward.  I agree, for what it's worth.
>
>  * Names?  The current scheme is
>    ~ci-train-ppa-service/ubuntu/landing-{000..020}, with 000 being a
>    test silo.  We could use
>    ~ci-train-ppa-service/ubuntu-rtm/landing-{021..040} to avoid having
>    to invent a new naming scheme.  However, this is sort of non-obvious
>    to the uninitiated, it doesn't give us a nice space for a test silo,
>    and it cuts off further expansion of the ubuntu silos in case we need
>    that.  Could we use
>    ~ci-train-ppa-service/ubuntu-rtm/landing-{000..020}?  Launchpad will
>    permit this (PPAs are unique up to owner/distribution/name), so the
>    only question is whether this is clear enough.

think the lattter sounds reasonable.

>
>  * How do we refer to these informally?  Right now people say "silo 1"
>    etc.  Perhaps "silo RTM-1"?  I think it ought to be made clear when
>    you're landing something in the more tightly-controlled RTM archive.

I can imagine that folks start talking like "its in stable silo 001"
... "in devel silo 001"

>
>  * How will we handle this in the spreadsheet?  My only thought so far
>    is that we should have a column for whether you're targeting RTM or
>    not.  But I guess at the moment we have a destination series in the
>    "Assign to silo" menu entry, which is used for trusty builds - I
>    guess maybe that could be extended to include a distribution?  Seems
>    a bit easy to make a mistake that way though.
>

I anticipated the least work on infrastructure side would be do
duplicate the spreadsheet and point that as the ubuntu-rtm target. Not
perfect, but as its not really a long lasting thing we are inventing
here, I would be in favor of going the route of less investment in the
spreadsheet code itself. That "stable landing spreadsheet" would grow
a column noting "landed in devel?"


>  * Presumably the backend and the dashboard would both need to be
>    extended.  I'm not familiar with the details here and would welcome
>    commentary from those who are.

Easiest might be to also duplicate the backend jenkins. It's already
charged afaik, so duplicating that for ubuntu-rtm might be easy.

CI Team can help on getting dashboard fixed so we also have a stable
channel view there.

>
>  * Anything else?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx]
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp