Skip to content

Add pCP OS package to Stable branch. #1374

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

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: public/9.0
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

paul-1
Copy link
Contributor

@paul-1 paul-1 commented Apr 6, 2025

No description provided.

@paul-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

paul-1 commented Apr 6, 2025

Need to get pCP packages for this branch too before I change the update script. I was not sure how you wanted to do a partial merge from 9.1 into this branch, so I just cherry-picked the commits, and manually did the change log.

@michaelherger
Copy link
Member

@paul-1 thanks for this PR. But that's definitely the kind of change I wouldn't want to port to stable without any good, long testing in dev first. I'd actually prefer not to port such a change to dev, as it's not a bug fix. Would this be required because the update script would not work the old way any more?

@paul-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

paul-1 commented Apr 7, 2025

That's a catch22. The new update script is not aware of branches, and that it would need to use the CPAN method to upgrade stable, or switch back to release. Until the updated packaging exists in all 3 branches, I cannot change the production update script to start using it.

What part of this change in packaging makes you nervous? At the end of the day all we really did was rename Custom.pm to pCP.pm

@michaelherger
Copy link
Member

michaelherger commented Apr 7, 2025

There are 9 files in this change set 😉. And it's not just files renamed. Most of them have some changes to them compared to the old files.

Breaking an update mechanism can be problematic, as some non-technical people might end up with a (for them) bricked system. And others would probably miss updates, lack of notifications or whatever.

Could we "break" 9.0 (stable) updates temporarily (and on purpose) by deploying the changes to 9.1 only, to collect some experience and validate the mechanism? Stable doesn't get updated often anyway.

@paul-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

paul-1 commented Apr 7, 2025

I'm okay with that. I will make a forum posting before doing it though.

@paul-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

paul-1 commented Apr 8, 2025

I was going through the script flow again this evening, it is possible to only direct the folks on the 9.1.0 branch to the new script. I have it written, I just want to run through a couple of different branch tests first.

@michaelherger
Copy link
Member

Is this obsolete by now?...

@paul-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

paul-1 commented May 5, 2025

It would be nice to get all branches on the same packaging. But I suppose that can wait until 9.1 gets released.

What would you recommend?

@michaelherger
Copy link
Member

It would be nice to get all branches on the same packaging. But I suppose that can wait until 9.1 gets released.

Agreed. Let's let it mature in 9.1. And when we see 9.1 won't be released any time soon we can still back port. But I'd rather git cherry-pick the changes than try to apply them as a whole in a new commit. We'll see.

@paul-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

paul-1 commented May 5, 2025

I CherryPicked them into the 9.0 branch to make this PR. These are the commits that would be needed whenever you are ready.

If you want to close this PR that's fine. You can always see it to reference it later.

@michaelherger
Copy link
Member

I CherryPicked them into the 9.0 branch to make this PR. These are the commits that would be needed whenever you are ready.

Oh, sorry, didn't realise. Great then! When time has come we might want to double check I haven't introduced new relevant changes since.

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.

2 participants