Infrastructure/infra-docs-fpo
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 100 Pull requests 5 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

infra/release_guide/beta_release improvements needed #317

New issue
Open
opened 2024-09-16 23:07:33 +00:00 by kevin · 5 comments
kevin commented 2024-09-16 23:07:33 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Some improvements could be made to the beta_release doc.

  1. I think we should split out the signing of checksum files to a small loop before running the stage-release.sh script. This would alllow us to just suggest running the script as ftpsync, so we can drop all the sudo calls there. ie, 'sudo -u ftpsync ./stage-release.sh ...' This would avoid some part of the sync taking a long while and asking for a sudo auth again.

  2. The command syncing the checksums back to stage should use '--include '*CHECKSUM'' to avoid scanning/statting everything again to see if it needs copied. This should be significatly faster.

  3. The rm commands for the previous beta show the current one in the doc. We should be able to change some var here to get it to show right?

  4. We should add a note at the end to mail mirror-admins and include a copy of the email template in the email templates dir.

  5. The doc has a 'Then run both bodhi playbooks: playbooks/groups/bodhi-backend01.yml and playbooks/openshift-apps/bodhi.yml (One for the backend vm and one for the OpenShift application)"
    as well as a 'Run the playbooks' section at the end. Only need one run there. Also, there's no changes on releng-compose here, so no need to run that playbook.

CC: @patrikp @jnsamyak

Some improvements could be made to the beta_release doc. 1. I think we should split out the signing of checksum files to a small loop _before_ running the stage-release.sh script. This would alllow us to just suggest running the script as ftpsync, so we can drop all the sudo calls there. ie, 'sudo -u ftpsync ./stage-release.sh ...' This would avoid some part of the sync taking a long while and asking for a sudo auth again. 2. The command syncing the checksums back to stage should use '--include '*CHECKSUM'' to avoid scanning/statting everything again to see if it needs copied. This should be significatly faster. 3. The rm commands for the previous beta show the current one in the doc. We should be able to change some var here to get it to show right? 4. We should add a note at the end to mail mirror-admins and include a copy of the email template in the email templates dir. 5. The doc has a 'Then run both bodhi playbooks: playbooks/groups/bodhi-backend01.yml and playbooks/openshift-apps/bodhi.yml (One for the backend vm and one for the OpenShift application)" as well as a 'Run the playbooks' section at the end. Only need one run there. Also, there's no changes on releng-compose here, so no need to run that playbook. CC: @patrikp @jnsamyak
jnsamyak commented 2024-09-27 13:26:06 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Thanks for brining this, I just saw this, and I'll try to work on this to make it better!

Thanks for brining this, I just saw this, and I'll try to work on this to make it better!
jnsamyak commented 2024-09-27 13:26:08 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Metadata Update from @jnsamyak:

  • Issue assigned to jnsamyak
**Metadata Update from @jnsamyak**: - Issue assigned to jnsamyak
amoloney commented 2024-10-01 16:33:23 +00:00
Copy link

Can I add something not technical based? Every Beta release theres a little confusion on the Beta Release Announcement. Traditionally, or tribally, the announcement sits with rel-eng. Is this something you would like to keep doing @jnsamyak / @kevin / @humaton ? Or should we formalise this as a responsibility of FPL/FOA to draft and send to the right places, eg Fedora Marketing, Magazine, Websites & discussion places (mail & discourse)?

Can I add something not technical based? Every Beta release theres a little confusion on the Beta Release Announcement. Traditionally, or tribally, the announcement sits with rel-eng. Is this something you would like to keep doing @jnsamyak / @kevin / @humaton ? Or should we formalise this as a responsibility of FPL/FOA to draft and send to the right places, eg Fedora Marketing, Magazine, Websites & discussion places (mail & discourse)?
kevin commented 2024-10-02 18:27:02 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

I personally don't care who does it. ;) If we want to move this to FPL/FOA, thats fine with me. As long as we are clear who is on the hook...

I personally don't care who does it. ;) If we want to move this to FPL/FOA, thats fine with me. As long as we are clear who is on the hook...
jnsamyak commented 2024-10-08 07:28:13 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

+1 to what Kevin said, I don't have any opinion on this either, but it makes sense if we want one person to make the beta announcements from FPL/FOA! Just to streamline this, I (as releng) person can confirm to @amoloney that this is done, and we can send an announcement and let it go from there, does this make sense?

+1 to what Kevin said, I don't have any opinion on this either, but it makes sense if we want one person to make the beta announcements from FPL/FOA! Just to streamline this, I (as releng) person can confirm to @amoloney that this is done, and we can send an announcement and let it go from there, does this make sense?
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
master
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels   
rerwite-required

   
SOP

   
untriaged
No labels
rerwite-required
SOP
untriaged
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Infrastructure/infra-docs-fpo#317
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?