Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improvements to the auto-obsoletion behavior. #33

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

lmacken
Copy link
Contributor

@lmacken lmacken commented Mar 1, 2014

⚠️ experimental feature 🚧

This allows new updates to obsolete any testing updates containing older versions, along with builds for packages not present in the new update. These non-obsolete builds are then inherited into the new update just like the bugs and notes.

@lmacken
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmacken commented Mar 1, 2014

We hit an issue today that this feature would fix. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-1874/abrt-2.1.12-1.fc19,libreport-2.1.12-1.fc19,abrt-java-connector-1.0.8-1.fc19

Did not get auto-obsoleted because a newer update was submitted that contained abrt and libreport, but not abrt-java-connector. The auto-obsoletion logic in bodhi would then skip obsoleting it because the packages didnt match.

This allows new updates to obsolete any updates containing older versions,
along with builds for packages not present in the new update. These non-obsolete
builds are then inherited into the new update.
This reverts commit 552c05a until we can
figure out how to get it working on EPEL6.
@bochecha
Copy link
Contributor

bochecha commented Mar 1, 2014

This change is sorely needed.

However, after staring at this for 45 minutes, I think I got what it's doing, and it seems alright... 😕

What keeps confusing me is that a build can theoretically have multiple updates in the model, so you're constantly iterating over the updates of a given build.

However, we're in fact mandating that one build can be in only one update (through obsoletion or errors), and so those for loops (for update in build.updates) will in fact act on only one update. 😫

I'll see if I can try it out on my own instance.

@lmacken
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmacken commented Mar 3, 2014

Yeah, you're right about that. At the time iterating over the build.updates just felt cleaner than doing build.updates[0].

@lmacken
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmacken commented Aug 9, 2014

I'm going to merge this at some point in the near future unless someone objects :D

@puiterwijk
Copy link
Contributor

@lmacken What is "the near future"?
So when do you expect to merge this?

@ralphbean
Copy link
Contributor

Closing this in favor of #145.

@ralphbean ralphbean closed this May 8, 2015
@bowlofeggs bowlofeggs deleted the feature/inherit-builds branch May 24, 2017 20:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants