-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
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
Update build targets for Rolling release configurations. #209
Conversation
Keeping the exact target name in the build file name is going to cause unecessary churn in commit history as the build file is renamed each time the platform rolls. Since the build file key in the index and the file contents both include target information the filename does not need to as well.
There are no ROS 1 repositories for Ubuntu Jammy.
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ notifications: | |||
- [email protected] | |||
maintainers: true | |||
sync: | |||
package_count: 500 | |||
package_count: 499 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I touched the package count so I could talk here about whether it makes sense keep it at 500 or if we should drop it pre-emptively in anticipation of some chaos as a result of the platform jump.
I think there's a case for leaving it at 500 until we get the first few waves of builds done and re-asses if the package count is blocking syncs but I started the conversation in case there were any other thoughts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think leaving it at 500, along with the required desktop
package, is fine. We could also consider using the percentages now that that is a feature in ros_buildfarm
, but I don't feel strongly about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I got ahead of myself and merged this with the decremented package count 🤦 Because it's only off by one, and because I expect that we'll want to relax this even further for at least the first sync to testing. I'm not going to make any further changes just yet.
This pull request has been mentioned on ROS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.ros.org/t/holding-releases-to-perform-rolling-transition-to-new-platforms/24191/3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I left a question inline, but generally looks good to me so I'll approve.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me.
The first part of #207 since we currently need a ros-rolling-ros-workspace package in order to bring up source and ci jobs for a new target.
Just before merging and deploying this change we should run a groovy script on build.ros2.org to disable all current rolling release jobs on Focal since once this is deployed those jobs will no longer be managed by ros_buildfarm.
While updating the targets I also renamed the ubuntu arm64 build file in order to (hopefully) avoid having to rename it again in 2024.
Since there is no ROS 1 build farm repository for Ubuntu Jammy I've dropped the ROS 1 repositories from the available repositories in these build files.