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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Release 3.7.1 #1935

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Release 3.7.1 #1935

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

dralley
Copy link
Contributor

@dralley dralley commented Feb 9, 2021

No description provided.

@pulpbot
Copy link
Member

pulpbot commented Feb 9, 2021

Warning: Issue #8114 is not at NEW/ASSIGNED/POST.

Attached issue: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8123

Warning: Issue #8091 is not at NEW/ASSIGNED/POST.

Attached issue: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8121

@dralley
Copy link
Contributor Author

dralley commented Feb 9, 2021

@goosemania The automation around this is totally borked since 3.7 branch is based on Travis. I decided it would take less time to do the cherry pick manually than to try to fix everything. If you're OK with it, I can just run the tests and push the package locally.

@goosemania
Copy link
Member

goosemania commented Feb 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

@dralley , maybe I missed something, however I'm surprised we need it at all, I thought Katello agreed to upgrade to pulp_rpm 3.9. It's compatible with pulpcore 3.7, so I'm not sure why backports are needed at all.

If you find it faster to do manually, I'm ok with that. Don't forget also about bindings for python and ruby + the docs.
But if katello can't upgrade and stuck on pulp_rpm 3.7, they might ask for more backports, so it's hard to say whether it's worth to fix automation. I'd start with re-asking if they can upgrade pulp_rpm to 3.9.

@dralley
Copy link
Contributor Author

dralley commented Feb 9, 2021 •
edited
Loading

@goosemania I can ask again but I was operating off of this discussion


<dalley> iballou, regarding the two backport issues you filed, you mentioned pulpcore 3.9, but which versions of pulp_rpm do you need this fix present in?  pulp_rpm 3.7?  Or is 3.9 good enough (being released next week)
<iballou> dalley I just marked it for 3.9 since it was blocking the upgrade, but if it could be picked to 3.7 too that would alleviate issues for older katello servers (we skipped 3.8)
<iballou> yeah I do think the advisory copying issue at least should be picked to 3.7. Folks on 3.17 and 3.18 will not be able to do CV filtering otherwise (somehow we haven't heard issues with it yet though)

@jlsherrill
Copy link
Contributor

I think various efforts were being worked on at the same time, but yes we are working on upgrading to pulp-rpm 3.9 within katello 3.18/3.17/4.0, so i think those backports aren't necessary now (they probably were before we realized that we needed to backport pulp-rpm 3.9). Sorry for the confusion! @ianballou let me know if there's anything i said that is incorrect

@dralley dralley closed this Feb 9, 2021
@dralley dralley deleted the release-3.7.1 branch February 9, 2021 17:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@dralley @pulpbot @goosemania @jlsherrill