is core-updates still a thing?

is core-updates still a thing?

[Andy Tai]

Hi, curious if core-updates still a thing?    There seems a branch by
that name and the manual still says patches causing large number of
rebuilds should go to core-updates, at least for these not aiming at a
specific feature branch.

Re: is core-updates still a thing?

[Katherine Cox-Buday]

On 9/24/23 1:27 AM, Andy Tai wrote:
> Hi, curious if core-updates still a thing?    There seems a branch by
> that name and the manual still says patches causing large number of
> rebuilds should go to core-updates, at least for these not aiming at a
> specific feature branch.
I have the same question.

My understanding is that feature-branches are now the canonical way to 
work on things, and core-updates has become just another kind of 
feature-branch for landing groups of large changes that don't really fit 
anywhere; the difference being that it's now more ephemeral and "as 
needed" instead of the default for large changes.

Do I have that right?

I guess we need to update the manual?

Re: is core-updates still a thing?

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Andy,

Andy Tai <atai@atai.org> writes:

> Hi, curious if core-updates still a thing?    There seems a branch by
> that name and the manual still says patches causing large number of
> rebuilds should go to core-updates, at least for these not aiming at a
> specific feature branch.

It is.  We can't have topic branches or teams for all packages out
there, so core-updates is the catch all net.  We'll try to build it and
integrate it more often though.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Re: is core-updates still a thing?

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Katherine,

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> writes:

> On 9/24/23 1:27 AM, Andy Tai wrote:
>> Hi, curious if core-updates still a thing?    There seems a branch by
>> that name and the manual still says patches causing large number of
>> rebuilds should go to core-updates, at least for these not aiming at a
>> specific feature branch.
> I have the same question.
>
> My understanding is that feature-branches are now the canonical way to
> work on things, and core-updates has become just another kind of
> feature-branch for landing groups of large changes that don't really
> fit anywhere; the difference being that it's now more ephemeral and
> "as needed" instead of the default for large changes.
>
> Do I have that right?
>
> I guess we need to update the manual?

I think that's right!  Clarifications to the manual would be welcome.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Re: is core-updates still a thing?

[Simon Tournier]

Hi,

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 at 12:28, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:

>> My understanding is that feature-branches are now the canonical way to
>> work on things, and core-updates has become just another kind of
>> feature-branch for landing groups of large changes that don't really
>> fit anywhere; the difference being that it's now more ephemeral and
>> "as needed" instead of the default for large changes.
>>
>> Do I have that right?
>>
>> I guess we need to update the manual?
>
> I think that's right!

It misses a branch for collecting changes with large impact, for
instance the ones as sed, grep, ed, etc.  Somehow packages that are
considered as ’core’ but are not part of another team.  Right?

Well, from my understanding and for one example, the update of the
package Python is managed by the branch python-team but the update of
package sed is managed by the branch <??>.

I thought this branch <??> is still named core-updates.

Well, it could also be staging.  Or any other fancy name fitting the
feature-branches. :-)

IMHO, there is a set of packages that cannot be pushed directly to
master and that do not belong to any team.  Where are they pushed?  And
how do we check all is fine with CI/QA before landing them in master?

We can create a team (base team?) for that and a dedicated branch
(base-team?).  IMHO, the easiest was to still consider a core-updates
branch collecting changes with large impact and not part of any team;
somehow a default branch for these sort of changes.  I do not know.

Note: it is not related to the core team. :-)  It could be but, to my
knowledge, it has not been discussed.

Cheers,
simon