Critical Path Packages Proposal

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 19:00, 10 June 2009 by Jkeating (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Overview

Define a "Critical Path" set of packages that require special care when updating in rawhide and releases.

Problem Space

Currently documented policies treat every package the same. While this is good for uniformity, in reality certain packages require and have been given extra attention and care when updating and testing. These packages have potential to break the critical path of use of our Fedora distribution.

Proposed Solution

Define a set of actions and their packages/deps to provide those actions that to define the "Critical Path". Packages within the "critical path" have extra requirements on getting tagged for freeze breaks and updates.

Scope

  • Maintainers of packages within the Critical Path
  • QA/Releng to provide extra attention to update/freeze requests for packages within the critical path
  • Bodhi to handle extra requirements
  • Tooling to define Critical Path each release
  • Documentation

Active Ingredients

Bodhi is the most active ingredient here. It will have to handle blocking the update packages within the critical path until it gets the extra attention from QA/releng

Discussion Points

What is the critical path of actions?

  • graphical network install
  • post-install booting
  • decrypt encrypted filesystems
  • graphics
  • login
  • networking
  • get updates
  • minimal buildroot
  • compose new trees
  • compose live

What teams provide the extra attention?

QA/Releng are good suggestions, however these groups will have to make clear how new members can join the groups and what the responsibilities are.

When and how to determine packages within the path

Because deps change, we'll have to regenerate the list of packages at certain intervals. Once per release may or may not be enough.

Spins

How can spins define their own critical path and keep track of changes within their path?

Maintainers who do not wish to maintain critical path packages

Will they be informed early enough to find alternative maintainers?

Comments?

To leave a comment, use the Talk page for this proposal.

Owner

User:skvidal