Hi,
We've had this conversation at least once before, but I figured I would bring it up again [1].
You can see in Mike's original post that there a number of reasons we should bump to the 2.7 series in EPEL, but primarily it's because critical bug fixes aren't ending up in the 2.6 series any longer. I don't want to completely rehash the conversation in the old thread, but I think that it's important for EPEL to be providing updates on a maintained branch so I'd like to propose that both EPEL 5 & EPEL 6 packages get bumped to 2.7. This plan will largely avoid the issues that come with the potentially tricky upgrade path for users between 2.x and 3.x.
Thoughts?
-Sam
1. https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2012-October/msg00043.html
On 6 August 2013 10:30, Sam Kottler skottler@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
We've had this conversation at least once before, but I figured I would bring it up again [1].
You can see in Mike's original post that there a number of reasons we should bump to the 2.7 series in EPEL, but primarily it's because critical bug fixes aren't ending up in the 2.6 series any longer. I don't want to completely rehash the conversation in the old thread, but I think that it's important for EPEL to be providing updates on a maintained branch so I'd like to propose that both EPEL 5 & EPEL 6 packages get bumped to 2.7. This plan will largely avoid the issues that come with the potentially tricky upgrade path for users between 2.x and 3.x.
Thoughts?
I think both to 2.7.x sounds workable with the usual trumpets and fanfare to let people know that clients and/or servers going to 2.7 might have problems if not done syncronously...
-Sam
epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Sam Kottler skottler@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
We've had this conversation at least once before, but I figured I would bring it up again [1].
You can see in Mike's original post that there a number of reasons we should bump to the 2.7 series in EPEL, but primarily it's because critical bug fixes aren't ending up in the 2.6 series any longer. I don't want to completely rehash the conversation in the old thread, but I think that it's important for EPEL to be providing updates on a maintained branch so I'd like to propose that both EPEL 5 & EPEL 6 packages get bumped to 2.7. This plan will largely avoid the issues that come with the potentially tricky upgrade path for users between 2.x and 3.x.
Thoughts?
So, could you remind us again of the various interactions of the versions? (or is there a doc on it?)
Ie, of 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, which versions clients can talk to which versions servers?
Also, is there any changes people would need to make to their puppet manifests between 2.6 and 2.7?
In general I'm in favor of getting it updated...
kevin
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
So, could you remind us again of the various interactions of the versions? (or is there a doc on it?)
Ie, of 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, which versions clients can talk to which versions servers?
I'm not sure about 2.7 -> 3.0, but for the sake of this discussion perhaps what's important is that 2.6 clients and/or servers don't get along with 2.7 clients and/or servers. So any existing client or server using EPEL puppet will need to be updated at the same time.
Also, is there any changes people would need to make to their puppet manifests between 2.6 and 2.7?
I think there are some small things here, but should mostly just work -- I'm able to share some (relatively simple) configs between 2.6 and 2.7 servers/clients with no issues. If someone could provide more detail than that, I'd appreciate it :)
In general I'm in favor of getting it updated...
+1, just hate the surprise breakage for those that don't see this coming...
-Jeff
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Jeff Sheltren jeff@tag1consulting.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
So, could you remind us again of the various interactions of the versions? (or is there a doc on it?)
Ie, of 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, which versions clients can talk to which versions servers?
So 2.6 clients should be able to talk with 2.7.x masters. The later 2.7.x stuff is even better with more helpful warnings and deprecation notices.
I'm not sure about 2.7 -> 3.0, but for the sake of this discussion perhaps what's important is that 2.6 clients and/or servers don't get along with 2.7 clients and/or servers. So any existing client or server using EPEL puppet will need to be updated at the same time.
Also, is there any changes people would need to make to their puppet manifests between 2.6 and 2.7?
The main things are:
Service resource types by default have has_status => true in 2.7.x (which was mostly of the time manually set in 2.6.x by people authoring code anyway).
I think there was one other item, but I can't for the life of me remember it right now. There also is some ill-defined behavior in 2.7.x on using Class/Variable names with a hyphen in them. I'd advice against it.
I think there are some small things here, but should mostly just work -- I'm able to share some (relatively simple) configs between 2.6 and 2.7 servers/clients with no issues. If someone could provide more detail than that, I'd appreciate it :)
Sam, any idea where this is at?
In general I'm in favor of getting it updated...
+1, just hate the surprise breakage for those that don't see this coming...
-Jeff
epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Stahnke" stahnma@puppetlabs.com To: "EPEL Development List" epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 11:25:06 PM Subject: Re: EPEL Updating Puppet to 2.7.x
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Jeff Sheltren jeff@tag1consulting.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
So, could you remind us again of the various interactions of the versions? (or is there a doc on it?)
Ie, of 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, which versions clients can talk to which versions servers?
So 2.6 clients should be able to talk with 2.7.x masters. The later 2.7.x stuff is even better with more helpful warnings and deprecation notices.
I'm not sure about 2.7 -> 3.0, but for the sake of this discussion perhaps what's important is that 2.6 clients and/or servers don't get along with 2.7 clients and/or servers. So any existing client or server using EPEL puppet will need to be updated at the same time.
Also, is there any changes people would need to make to their puppet manifests between 2.6 and 2.7?
The main things are:
Service resource types by default have has_status => true in 2.7.x (which was mostly of the time manually set in 2.6.x by people authoring code anyway).
Yeah, this shouldn't really cause issues. Most people already used it to get status regardless.
I think there was one other item, but I can't for the life of me remember it right now. There also is some ill-defined behavior in 2.7.x on using Class/Variable names with a hyphen in them. I'd advice against it.
This was in a lead-up to 3.x where you can't use hyphens in class names. I believe it's just a deprecation warning, though, so that shouldn't directly affect migration path.
I think there are some small things here, but should mostly just work -- I'm able to share some (relatively simple) configs between 2.6 and 2.7 servers/clients with no issues. If someone could provide more detail than that, I'd appreciate it :)
Sam, any idea where this is at?
I'm ready to flip the switch. I haven't heard any strong opposition so I'll start the update process.
Yell if you're in opposition or forever hold your peace.
In general I'm in favor of getting it updated...
+1, just hate the surprise breakage for those that don't see this coming...
-Jeff
epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jeff Sheltren -
Kevin Fenzi -
Michael Stahnke -
Sam Kottler -
Stephen John Smoogen