From Fedora Project Wiki
(Created page with "The above seems to say “branching is hard, let’s not assume what it looks like but just store a flexible representation that we can adapt as we need.” That’s true to ...")
 
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
That’s true to some extent… but there ''are ''concerns we can anticipate that we need to handle in our branching structure. Having covered the fundamental principle that branching policy needs to remain flexible, let’s look at some of the issues we need to handle as we define that policy.
 
That’s true to some extent… but there ''are ''concerns we can anticipate that we need to handle in our branching structure. Having covered the fundamental principle that branching policy needs to remain flexible, let’s look at some of the issues we need to handle as we define that policy.
  
'''Splitting a binary package build over multiple modules: '''This is something that is surprisingly common in RHEL. It happens typically because we do not want to give the same level of support to all sub-packages from a single upstream source.
+
== Splitting a binary package build over multiple modules ==
 +
 
 +
This is something that is surprisingly common in RHEL. It happens typically because we do not want to give the same level of support to all sub-packages from a single upstream source.
  
 
Examples might be when we want to include a library to support our own applications, but do not want to give it full support for end-users; we might include the library itself in RHEL, but split out the ability to develop against it (the include files, static libraries etc. that typically land in a -devel binary rpm) into, say, Optional. Or we might want to reserve certain functionality for specific products: eg. providing only guest hardware devices in cloud images, without offering hardware enablement with the full complement of kernel hardware drivers.
 
Examples might be when we want to include a library to support our own applications, but do not want to give it full support for end-users; we might include the library itself in RHEL, but split out the ability to develop against it (the include files, static libraries etc. that typically land in a -devel binary rpm) into, say, Optional. Or we might want to reserve certain functionality for specific products: eg. providing only guest hardware devices in cloud images, without offering hardware enablement with the full complement of kernel hardware drivers.
Line 11: Line 13:
 
But it is still quite possible to achieve, if the modules which are to share binaries have matching branches. In that case, module composes can always agree on which brew/koji branches [tags] to consume packages from. So this may be fairly easy for modules which are part of a single consolidated release, as defined above; it would be fair to restrict this possibility to that case.
 
But it is still quite possible to achieve, if the modules which are to share binaries have matching branches. In that case, module composes can always agree on which brew/koji branches [tags] to consume packages from. So this may be fairly easy for modules which are part of a single consolidated release, as defined above; it would be fair to restrict this possibility to that case.
  
'''Building a module in multiple build roots: '''Does a single module source branch result in a single composed binary branch? Or do we build that same source multiple times against different base distribution build roots?
+
== Building a module in multiple build roots ==
 +
 
 +
Does a single module source branch result in a single composed binary branch? Or do we build that same source multiple times against different base distribution build roots?
  
 
Clearly, branching becomes enormously more complicated if we need to support builds for multiple different build roots in a single branch. The idea of a single coherent branching structure from git to release is broken if we have multiple output branches from a single input branch.
 
Clearly, branching becomes enormously more complicated if we need to support builds for multiple different build roots in a single branch. The idea of a single coherent branching structure from git to release is broken if we have multiple output branches from a single input branch.

Revision as of 14:01, 9 September 2016

The above seems to say “branching is hard, let’s not assume what it looks like but just store a flexible representation that we can adapt as we need.”

That’s true to some extent… but there are concerns we can anticipate that we need to handle in our branching structure. Having covered the fundamental principle that branching policy needs to remain flexible, let’s look at some of the issues we need to handle as we define that policy.

Splitting a binary package build over multiple modules

This is something that is surprisingly common in RHEL. It happens typically because we do not want to give the same level of support to all sub-packages from a single upstream source.

Examples might be when we want to include a library to support our own applications, but do not want to give it full support for end-users; we might include the library itself in RHEL, but split out the ability to develop against it (the include files, static libraries etc. that typically land in a -devel binary rpm) into, say, Optional. Or we might want to reserve certain functionality for specific products: eg. providing only guest hardware devices in cloud images, without offering hardware enablement with the full complement of kernel hardware drivers.

Can we do this naturally in a modular build chain? Clearly it breaks any assumption that a module can be both compiled and composed in complete independence from any other: if a package build ends up in multiple modules, then the compile phase of building those modules is now linked. We need to determine how important it is to support this.

But it is still quite possible to achieve, if the modules which are to share binaries have matching branches. In that case, module composes can always agree on which brew/koji branches [tags] to consume packages from. So this may be fairly easy for modules which are part of a single consolidated release, as defined above; it would be fair to restrict this possibility to that case.

Building a module in multiple build roots

Does a single module source branch result in a single composed binary branch? Or do we build that same source multiple times against different base distribution build roots?

Clearly, branching becomes enormously more complicated if we need to support builds for multiple different build roots in a single branch. The idea of a single coherent branching structure from git to release is broken if we have multiple output branches from a single input branch.

But the entire point of ABI forwards compatibility is to avoid the need to do this: to run a module on a set of major runtimes, it should in theory be necessarily simply to build it on the oldest runtime in that set. A module built on RHEL-6 should run on RHEL-7 or -8, as long as it is using only dependencies with tier-1 API stability guarantees.

So before working through the complexities of commit-once, compile-multiple-times, it will be important to determine to what extent we can simply depend on ABI compatibility to ensure a module works against multiple runtimes.