canonical-ci-engineering team mailing list archive

[Vincent Ladeuil <vila+ci@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> Andy Doan <andy.doan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    > On 12/02/2013 02:41 PM, Francis Ginther wrote:
    >> We do still need to perform a clean. For example: If we have a package
    >> 'foo' on our build ppa with version 20131201.1, it will be promoted to
    >> the archive PPA if it passes testing and used to create the golden
    >> image. The next time a new 'foo' is attempted, it will have a higher
    >> version, 20131201.2. If the testing for 'foo' fails, we need to delete
    >> it so that when the build PPA is reused, the failed version of 'foo'
    >> never gets integrated into a golden image. If the build PPA were not
    >> cleaned, the 20131201.2 version would be selected instead of the
    >> correct one in the archive PPA.

    > Since PPA cleaning seems to be a long non-deterministic thing,
    > does it makes sense to try and clean the PPA when its returned
    > back to the pool?

Yes.

    > This would allow the call to ppa.reserve to be synchronous. The
    > place I see this simplification being suboptimal is if we have are
    > low on unreserved PPA's and most of our users don't care if the
    > PPA is clean or not.

If our users don't care, I think we should ;)

It's easier to think about a newly acquired PPA as clean.

We'll *have* to handle the case where no PPA is available anyway.


      Vincent