Hi Drew,
Why should we revert 286830029a1b2 (main/ceph: Move ceph from
community) and move it back to community? Your commit message does not
explain why we move it back after 2 months.
The commit message for commit 286830029a1b2 says:
> This move should allow us to enable ceph support in Qemu
Does this mean that you don't want qemu with ceph support or do you
think we should move qemu to community too?
Thanks!
-nc
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:36:35 -0500
Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:
> ---> {main => community}/ceph/APKBUILD | 0> {main => community}/ceph/allperms.patch | 0> {main => community}/ceph/boost-1.70.patch | 0> {main => community}/ceph/ceph-user.pre-install | 0> {main => community}/ceph/musl-fixes.patch | 0> 5 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)> rename {main => community}/ceph/APKBUILD (100%)> rename {main => community}/ceph/allperms.patch (100%)> rename {main => community}/ceph/boost-1.70.patch (100%)> rename {main => community}/ceph/ceph-user.pre-install (100%)> rename {main => community}/ceph/musl-fixes.patch (100%)> > diff --git a/main/ceph/APKBUILD b/community/ceph/APKBUILD> similarity index 100%> rename from main/ceph/APKBUILD> rename to community/ceph/APKBUILD> diff --git a/main/ceph/allperms.patch b/community/ceph/allperms.patch> similarity index 100%> rename from main/ceph/allperms.patch> rename to community/ceph/allperms.patch> diff --git a/main/ceph/boost-1.70.patch b/community/ceph/boost-1.70.patch> similarity index 100%> rename from main/ceph/boost-1.70.patch> rename to community/ceph/boost-1.70.patch> diff --git a/main/ceph/ceph-user.pre-install b/community/ceph/ceph-user.pre-install> similarity index 100%> rename from main/ceph/ceph-user.pre-install> rename to community/ceph/ceph-user.pre-install> diff --git a/main/ceph/musl-fixes.patch b/community/ceph/musl-fixes.patch> similarity index 100%> rename from main/ceph/musl-fixes.patch> rename to community/ceph/musl-fixes.patch
On Wed Dec 11, 2019 at 9:25 AM, Natanael Copa wrote:
> Why should we revert 286830029a1b2 (main/ceph: Move ceph from> community) and move it back to community? Your commit message does not> explain why we move it back after 2 months.> > The commit message for commit 286830029a1b2 says:> > This move should allow us to enable ceph support in Qemu> > Does this mean that you don't want qemu with ceph support or do you> think we should move qemu to community too?
I hadn't realized it was moved to main, or I would have explained in the
commit message. Apologies.
I think that qemu should also be moved to community, unless we need it
for cross bootstrapping (I don't think we do, though). I'm in favor of
keeping main small.
> On Dec 11, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:> > On Wed Dec 11, 2019 at 9:25 AM, Natanael Copa wrote:>> Why should we revert 286830029a1b2 (main/ceph: Move ceph from>> community) and move it back to community? Your commit message does not>> explain why we move it back after 2 months.>> >> The commit message for commit 286830029a1b2 says:>>> This move should allow us to enable ceph support in Qemu>> >> Does this mean that you don't want qemu with ceph support or do you>> think we should move qemu to community too?> > I hadn't realized it was moved to main, or I would have explained in the> commit message. Apologies.> > I think that qemu should also be moved to community, unless we need it> for cross bootstrapping (I don't think we do, though). I'm in favor of> keeping main small.
I don't have strong feelings on what lives where. I think there could be
better documentation about what lives in which section of the repository.
I always assumed that getting to main was the goal of all packages based
on what little info there is describing what each repo is for.
This is a nice segue into something I brought up in the dev irc one time
though. The idea of creating some directory structure in the repo subdirs
in git so there's not 4000+ items in each directory. I'm not sure moving
a bunch of stuff out of main into community is going to make that
situation better.
--Iggy
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:01:52 -0800
Iggy Jackson <iggy@kws1.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:> > > > On Wed Dec 11, 2019 at 9:25 AM, Natanael Copa wrote: > >> Why should we revert 286830029a1b2 (main/ceph: Move ceph from> >> community) and move it back to community? Your commit message does not> >> explain why we move it back after 2 months.> >> > >> The commit message for commit 286830029a1b2 says: > >>> This move should allow us to enable ceph support in Qemu > >> > >> Does this mean that you don't want qemu with ceph support or do you> >> think we should move qemu to community too? > > > > I hadn't realized it was moved to main, or I would have explained in the> > commit message. Apologies.> > > > I think that qemu should also be moved to community, unless we need it> > for cross bootstrapping (I don't think we do, though). I'm in favor of> > keeping main small.
Keeping main small will reduce our long term workload.
> I don't have strong feelings on what lives where. I think there could be > better documentation about what lives in which section of the repository.> I always assumed that getting to main was the goal of all packages based > on what little info there is describing what each repo is for.
If we want it in main or community depends mostly on if we need and can
to maintain it for two years. We provide security fixes for main
repository for two years while we only provide security fixes for
community for the latest stable release, for 6 months.
It seems that upstream ceph supports their releases for approx 2 years,
so I think keeping it in main is doable.
Iggy, since you are the maintainer of ceph, do you think you will be
able to help us with security fixes for ceph for alpine 3.11 til Nov
2021?
The other question is if we should reduce support time of qemu to only
latest stable release, or do we need support it for 2 years?
-nc
> This is a nice segue into something I brought up in the dev irc one> time though. The idea of creating some directory structure in the> repo subdirs in git so there's not 4000+ items in each directory. I'm> not sure moving a bunch of stuff out of main into community is going> to make that situation better.> > --Iggy
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 4:21 AM, Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:> > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:01:52 -0800> Iggy Jackson <iggy@kws1.com> wrote:> >>> On Dec 11, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:>>> >>> On Wed Dec 11, 2019 at 9:25 AM, Natanael Copa wrote: >>>> Why should we revert 286830029a1b2 (main/ceph: Move ceph from>>>> community) and move it back to community? Your commit message does not>>>> explain why we move it back after 2 months.>>>> >>>> The commit message for commit 286830029a1b2 says: >>>>> This move should allow us to enable ceph support in Qemu >>>> >>>> Does this mean that you don't want qemu with ceph support or do you>>>> think we should move qemu to community too? >>> >>> I hadn't realized it was moved to main, or I would have explained in the>>> commit message. Apologies.>>> >>> I think that qemu should also be moved to community, unless we need it>>> for cross bootstrapping (I don't think we do, though). I'm in favor of>>> keeping main small.> > Keeping main small will reduce our long term workload.> >> I don't have strong feelings on what lives where. I think there could be >> better documentation about what lives in which section of the repository.>> I always assumed that getting to main was the goal of all packages based >> on what little info there is describing what each repo is for.> > If we want it in main or community depends mostly on if we need and can> to maintain it for two years. We provide security fixes for main> repository for two years while we only provide security fixes for> community for the latest stable release, for 6 months.> > It seems that upstream ceph supports their releases for approx 2 years,> so I think keeping it in main is doable.> > Iggy, since you are the maintainer of ceph, do you think you will be> able to help us with security fixes for ceph for alpine 3.11 til Nov> 2021?
I'm definitely planning on maintaining it for the stable branches going
forward. I'm actually working on bumping the version for a data
corruption bug and assumed I'd have to back-port that to the 3.11
branch if there is one already.
--Iggy
> > The other question is if we should reduce support time of qemu to only> latest stable release, or do we need support it for 2 years?> > -nc> > >> This is a nice segue into something I brought up in the dev irc one>> time though. The idea of creating some directory structure in the>> repo subdirs in git so there's not 4000+ items in each directory. I'm>> not sure moving a bunch of stuff out of main into community is going>> to make that situation better.>> >> --Iggy
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:18:25AM -0800, Iggy Jackson wrote:
> > > > > > if we want it in main or community depends mostly on if we need and can> > to maintain it for two years. we provide security fixes for main> > repository for two years while we only provide security fixes for> > community for the latest stable release, for 6 months.> > > > it seems that upstream ceph supports their releases for approx 2 years,> > so i think keeping it in main is doable.> > > > iggy, since you are the maintainer of ceph, do you think you will be> > able to help us with security fixes for ceph for alpine 3.11 til nov> > 2021?> > I'm definitely planning on maintaining it for the stable branches going > forward. I'm actually working on bumping the version for a data > corruption bug and assumed I'd have to back-port that to the 3.11 > branch if there is one already.> > --Iggy>
3.11 has not been branched off yet, that will be done when 3.11 is
actually released.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:18:25 -0800
Iggy Jackson <iggy@kws1.com> wrote:
> > If we want it in main or community depends mostly on if we need and can> > to maintain it for two years. We provide security fixes for main> > repository for two years while we only provide security fixes for> > community for the latest stable release, for 6 months.> > > > It seems that upstream ceph supports their releases for approx 2 years,> > so I think keeping it in main is doable.> > > > Iggy, since you are the maintainer of ceph, do you think you will be> > able to help us with security fixes for ceph for alpine 3.11 til Nov> > 2021? > > I'm definitely planning on maintaining it for the stable branches going > forward. I'm actually working on bumping the version for a data > corruption bug and assumed I'd have to back-port that to the 3.11 > branch if there is one already.
Sorry, I got impatient and move it back to community together with
qemu. It will hopefully reduce our maintenance burden long term. This
means that qemu users will need to upgrade to latest stable release
every 6 months.
Let me know if this is a problem for you (or for anyone else)
Thanks!
-nc