Re: [gentoo-server] Stable Portage tree

[Patrick Lauer]

On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 11:20 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
> The idea I had (at least initially), was using the snapshot releng
> builds for their release as our base tree to use for a release. After
> they finalize the tree, I'd see a group of folks going through and doing
> another round of QA and fixing any more bugs that may crop up.
That sounds reasonable. I suggest that new versions of ebuilds should be
~ARCHed so that dedicated updates are easier (no overlays etc.)
> After its
> been established as a 'good' tree, I'd see us releasing that as
> something like 2005.1E or something like that. That part of a 'stable'
> tree is relatively easy to do aside from any issues cropping up from the
> QA section.
Agreed
> The real fun begins during the maintenance phase where GLSAs, and
> critical software (data crippling type of things) updates need to be
> updated in it. This is where we'd need to decide whether to go the back
> port route, or just force folks to upgrade if the GLSA affects it.
I'd say upgrade - backports would consume an extreme amount of manpower
while testing still needs to be done by the end-user anyway. 
> Essentially, our group would be managing their own tree. It sounds
> fairly simple, but to ensure a level of quality, we'd need to test the
> new ebuild/upgrade in some type of QA environment (which we currently
> don't have enough good man power for).
That's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem ;-)
> Next, say when the next release comes out (2006.0E), we'd have to come
> up with a clean upgrade path to ensure no breakages. This is the part
> that will require a lot of time and effort. Ideally, it'd be nice if we
> came up with a helper script to 'fix' things as the upgrade happens.
So do we offer upgrades for 2005.1E or do we "force" people to upgrade at least bi-yearly?

> Last, we'd need to decide how long to keep a particular tree updated. If
> we went on two releases per year, after 2 years we'd have 4 trees to
> keep up to date and come up with upgrade plans for each of those.
I think 2 years is reasonable, any users that wish to keep a tree longer 
should be prepared to support that themselves (and if that only means 
hiring three gentoo devs fulltime ;-) )

> Needless to say, doing it the 'right' way isn't very easy to do. Thats
> one of the things our server team would need to establish is what kind
> of level do we want to maintain. Thats kind of where the idea of a third
> party would come into play and possibly help fund a few folks to do this
> kind of work as a job :).
Agreed. In the beginning a "static" tree would be a nice start though
> Thoughts on that rough plan?
(1) Create a 2005.1-static tree
(2) start adding GLSA updates as they come up
(3) add new ebuilds ~arch so that updates are user-controlled
(4) slowly announce our plans and pull in more helpers
(5) create an extended, more precise roadmap ;-)

wkr,
Patrick 

-- 
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move