Add Fedora-36 native compile #256
Conversation
baude
force-pushed
the
addf36nativebuild
branch
4 times, most recently
from
e75d8b0 to
d494fa8
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: baude, flouthoc, lsm5 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
edsantiago
left a comment
edsantiago
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mostly LGTM, but two maintenance concerns
| container: | ||
| cpu: 2 | ||
| memory: 2 | ||
| image: quay.io/libpod/fedora36rust |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
II get super nervous around :latest, and even more so when it's in an environment that needs to be maintained over time. Could I humbly request that you tag this image (in quay) with a suitable YYYYMMDD and use that tag here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is to be nervous about? this is supposed to mimic actual distribution builds so we don't incur problems when it comes to packaging. should it not be latest? that is the one that gets update. tell me more
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that is the one that gets update
And that's the crux. Said updates are out-of-band wrt the code that relies on it (here in CI). We've seen this happen several times: foo.image:latest gets updated, and a few days later something breaks on a maintenance branch because that update changed a behavior that nobody even knew the old branch relied on. See, e.g., containers/podman#12343
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we actually want that in the case though, no? If the distribution ships an updated cargo, then we want to be testing with that on all branches, as we are pegged to the distribution level here; not the cargo version. What so you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a tradeoff. It's one that we make often, and sometimes it's the right call, sometimes it's not.
I'm not blocking the PR, merely calling attention to it. If this is a deliberate and well-thought-out choice, then so be it. But could I at least request that you give the existing image a secondary descriptive tag? That way if/when there's a SNAFU with an image upgrade, we can do an emergency revert.
baude
force-pushed
the
addf36nativebuild
branch
from
d494fa8 to
e5bd535
Compare
|
/lgtm |
Signed-off-by: Brent Baude <[email protected]>
baude
force-pushed
the
addf36nativebuild
branch
from
e5bd535 to
e14f59c
Compare
|
/lgtm |
|
Duplication Is Evil! /lgtm |
|
@edsantiago: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators DetailsIn response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
|
/hold cancel |
6 participants
Signed-off-by: Brent Baude [email protected]