[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Zac Medico]

In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable request.

The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint about
changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using git sync with
overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0 gives those users a
workaround. There's also bug 597838, about the sync-depth setting being
ineffective, but I only know of a couple of people that have been able
to reproduce that.

So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time comes?
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Brian Dolbec]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable request.
> 
> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint about
> changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using git sync with
> overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0 gives those users a
> workaround. There's also bug 597838, about the sync-depth setting
> being ineffective, but I only know of a couple of people that have
> been able to reproduce that.
> 
> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
> comes?

I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be stabled?

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Zac Medico]

On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable request.
>>
>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint about
>> changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using git sync with
>> overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0 gives those users a
>> workaround. There's also bug 597838, about the sync-depth setting
>> being ineffective, but I only know of a couple of people that have
>> been able to reproduce that.
>>
>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
>> comes?
> 
> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be stabled?
> 

There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good. Maybe we
should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days (we also need
to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by emerge-webrsync now).
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable request.
> >>
> >> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint about
> >> changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using git sync with
> >> overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0 gives those users a
> >> workaround. There's also bug 597838, about the sync-depth setting
> >> being ineffective, but I only know of a couple of people that have
> >> been able to reproduce that.
> >>
> >> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
> >> comes?  
> > 
> > I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be stabled?
> >   
> 
> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good. Maybe we
> should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days (we also need
> to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by emerge-webrsync now).

Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys before
it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without having to create
custom configuration files and/or run it as root?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 931 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Zac Medico]

On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable request.
>>>>
>>>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint about
>>>> changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using git sync with
>>>> overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0 gives those users a
>>>> workaround. There's also bug 597838, about the sync-depth setting
>>>> being ineffective, but I only know of a couple of people that have
>>>> been able to reproduce that.
>>>>
>>>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
>>>> comes?  
>>>
>>> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be stabled?
>>>   
>>
>> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good. Maybe we
>> should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days (we also need
>> to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by emerge-webrsync now).
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys before
> it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without having to create
> custom configuration files and/or run it as root?

Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since emerge-webrsync
has a --insecure option.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Brian Dolbec]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:  
> >>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable
> >>>> request.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint
> >>>> about changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using
> >>>> git sync with overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0
> >>>> gives those users a workaround. There's also bug 597838, about
> >>>> the sync-depth setting being ineffective, but I only know of a
> >>>> couple of people that have been able to reproduce that.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
> >>>> comes?    
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be
> >>> stabled? 
> >>
> >> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good.
> >> Maybe we should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days
> >> (we also need to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by
> >> emerge-webrsync now).  
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys
> > before it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without having
> > to create custom configuration files and/or run it as root?  
> 
> Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since
> emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option.

Why don't I/we work on whatever changes are needed to merge the
meta-manifest code to both portage and gkeys.  I'll push out another
release.  I also had some initial code that added gkeys use to verify
the pkg Manifest file, but I don't know if that is needed still, the
meta-manifest system will need to run a verify at the end of the sync.

We'll have to poke Robin some more to get some new infra keys setup.

If I have to, maybe I'll create some ansible scripts to run the dev
seeds update on vulture, transfer it to my system to push --sign to
api.g.o or break down and get Kristian to help me get key forwarding
better setup so I can do it from vulture.
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Zac Medico]

On 11/04/2016 03:47 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:  
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable
>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint
>>>>>> about changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using
>>>>>> git sync with overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0
>>>>>> gives those users a workaround. There's also bug 597838, about
>>>>>> the sync-depth setting being ineffective, but I only know of a
>>>>>> couple of people that have been able to reproduce that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
>>>>>> comes?    
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be
>>>>> stabled? 
>>>>
>>>> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good.
>>>> Maybe we should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days
>>>> (we also need to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by
>>>> emerge-webrsync now).  
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys
>>> before it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without having
>>> to create custom configuration files and/or run it as root?  
>>
>> Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since
>> emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option.
> 
> Why don't I/we work on whatever changes are needed to merge the
> meta-manifest code to both portage and gkeys.  I'll push out another
> release.  I also had some initial code that added gkeys use to verify
> the pkg Manifest file, but I don't know if that is needed still, the
> meta-manifest system will need to run a verify at the end of the sync.
> 
> We'll have to poke Robin some more to get some new infra keys setup.
> 
> If I have to, maybe I'll create some ansible scripts to run the dev
> seeds update on vulture, transfer it to my system to push --sign to
> api.g.o or break down and get Kristian to help me get key forwarding
> better setup so I can do it from vulture.

Sounds good, but I think we should cut a portage 2.3.3 release before we
make any more changes. Maybe do a release branch that includes
everything except the emerge-webrsync change.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Zac Medico]

On 11/04/2016 03:55 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 03:47 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -0700
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:  
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
>>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable
>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint
>>>>>>> about changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using
>>>>>>> git sync with overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0
>>>>>>> gives those users a workaround. There's also bug 597838, about
>>>>>>> the sync-depth setting being ineffective, but I only know of a
>>>>>>> couple of people that have been able to reproduce that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
>>>>>>> comes?    
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be
>>>>>> stabled? 
>>>>>
>>>>> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good.
>>>>> Maybe we should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days
>>>>> (we also need to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by
>>>>> emerge-webrsync now).  
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys
>>>> before it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without having
>>>> to create custom configuration files and/or run it as root?  
>>>
>>> Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since
>>> emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option.
>>
>> Why don't I/we work on whatever changes are needed to merge the
>> meta-manifest code to both portage and gkeys.  I'll push out another
>> release.  I also had some initial code that added gkeys use to verify
>> the pkg Manifest file, but I don't know if that is needed still, the
>> meta-manifest system will need to run a verify at the end of the sync.
>>
>> We'll have to poke Robin some more to get some new infra keys setup.
>>
>> If I have to, maybe I'll create some ansible scripts to run the dev
>> seeds update on vulture, transfer it to my system to push --sign to
>> api.g.o or break down and get Kristian to help me get key forwarding
>> better setup so I can do it from vulture.
> 
> Sounds good, but I think we should cut a portage 2.3.3 release before we
> make any more changes. Maybe do a release branch that includes
> everything except the emerge-webrsync change.

Let's just revert the emerge-webrsync patch, so we can tag a 2.3.3
release on the master branch.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3036 bytes --]

On 05.11.2016 00:15, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 03:55 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 11/04/2016 03:47 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -0700
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:  
>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
>>>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable
>>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint
>>>>>>>> about changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using
>>>>>>>> git sync with overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0
>>>>>>>> gives those users a workaround. There's also bug 597838, about
>>>>>>>> the sync-depth setting being ineffective, but I only know of a
>>>>>>>> couple of people that have been able to reproduce that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time
>>>>>>>> comes?    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be
>>>>>>> stabled? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good.
>>>>>> Maybe we should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 days
>>>>>> (we also need to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's needed by
>>>>>> emerge-webrsync now).  
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys
>>>>> before it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without having
>>>>> to create custom configuration files and/or run it as root?  
>>>>
>>>> Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since
>>>> emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option.
>>>
>>> Why don't I/we work on whatever changes are needed to merge the
>>> meta-manifest code to both portage and gkeys.  I'll push out another
>>> release.  I also had some initial code that added gkeys use to verify
>>> the pkg Manifest file, but I don't know if that is needed still, the
>>> meta-manifest system will need to run a verify at the end of the sync.
>>>
>>> We'll have to poke Robin some more to get some new infra keys setup.
>>>
>>> If I have to, maybe I'll create some ansible scripts to run the dev
>>> seeds update on vulture, transfer it to my system to push --sign to
>>> api.g.o or break down and get Kristian to help me get key forwarding
>>> better setup so I can do it from vulture.
>>
>> Sounds good, but I think we should cut a portage 2.3.3 release before we
>> make any more changes. Maybe do a release branch that includes
>> everything except the emerge-webrsync change.
> 
> Let's just revert the emerge-webrsync patch, so we can tag a 2.3.3
> release on the master branch.
> 

Will repoman be released with the same tag as well or is the portage and
repoman version not going to be syncronized?

Cheers,

Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 603 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request?

[Brian Dolbec]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:56:44 +0100
Manuel Rüger <mrueg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 05.11.2016 00:15, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 11/04/2016 03:55 PM, Zac Medico wrote:  
> >> On 11/04/2016 03:47 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:  
> >>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -0700
> >>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>> On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:  
> >>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700
> >>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:    
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700
> >>>>>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>       
> >>>>>>>> In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable
> >>>>>>>> request.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint
> >>>>>>>> about changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using
> >>>>>>>> git sync with overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0
> >>>>>>>> gives those users a workaround. There's also bug 597838,
> >>>>>>>> about the sync-depth setting being ineffective, but I only
> >>>>>>>> know of a couple of people that have been able to reproduce
> >>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the
> >>>>>>>> time comes?      
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure.  Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it
> >>>>>>> be stabled?   
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good.
> >>>>>> Maybe we should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30
> >>>>>> days (we also need to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's
> >>>>>> needed by emerge-webrsync now).    
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys
> >>>>> before it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without
> >>>>> having to create custom configuration files and/or run it as
> >>>>> root?    
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since
> >>>> emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option.  
> >>>
> >>> Why don't I/we work on whatever changes are needed to merge the
> >>> meta-manifest code to both portage and gkeys.  I'll push out
> >>> another release.  I also had some initial code that added gkeys
> >>> use to verify the pkg Manifest file, but I don't know if that is
> >>> needed still, the meta-manifest system will need to run a verify
> >>> at the end of the sync.
> >>>
> >>> We'll have to poke Robin some more to get some new infra keys
> >>> setup.
> >>>
> >>> If I have to, maybe I'll create some ansible scripts to run the
> >>> dev seeds update on vulture, transfer it to my system to push
> >>> --sign to api.g.o or break down and get Kristian to help me get
> >>> key forwarding better setup so I can do it from vulture.  
> >>
> >> Sounds good, but I think we should cut a portage 2.3.3 release
> >> before we make any more changes. Maybe do a release branch that
> >> includes everything except the emerge-webrsync change.  
> > 
> > Let's just revert the emerge-webrsync patch, so we can tag a 2.3.3
> > release on the master branch.
> >   
> 
> Will repoman be released with the same tag as well or is the portage
> and repoman version not going to be syncronized?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Manuel
> 

they are semi-independent, so will only be synchronized when API
changes force it to be.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>