Re: [BuildStream] BuildStream 2.0 planning





On 15/04/2020 11:37, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
Dear BuildStream community,

[...]


Timeline and strategy
=====================
We will not release BuildStream 2.0 before it is ready and we are
not setting any specific target dates, however there is consensus
that we want to work towards BuildStream 2.0 now, and we are motivated
to get it ready as soon as we can.


This seems generally positive

[...]


Sandboxing
----------

   * BuildBox only sandboxing solution[7][8]

     Blocker.

Asides from the above, sandbox capabilities and how they can
affect cache keys was discussed.

   - BuildBox provides 'capabilities' depending on host environment
   - A 'capability' can be considered a 'guarantee'
   - The YAML format can express the requirement of a 'capability',
     this requirement affects the cache keys.

An example of this is the `build-uid` and `build-gid` sandbox
configurations: if left unspecified, then the sandbox makes no
guarantee about which uid/gid is used for the process performing
a build.



Another part of sand boxing and the uid/gid story is file ownership etc this is a blocker for many things and is a long standing issue[21]. It is also one of the things mentioned on the last bst2 ML thread and in the milestone. It is great that now that the mtime work has shown a way that this can finally be achieved. There for I assume it is not mentioned here as it is implicitly part of this, I think it would be helpful to be explicitly mentioned as a blocker here.

[...]


Future plans after 2.0
----------------------
We are committed to continue development on 2.x for the long term,
and do not have plans to start work on BuildStream 3 shortly after
releasing BuildStream 2.0.

This will signal a return to a stable development model where
future versions of BuildStream will remain backwards compatible
with earlier versions of BuildStream 2 with regards to all of
our stable API surfaces (CLI, Plugin API and YAML format), with
a new commitment to cache key stability.

This seems like a noble goal, but given it was so hard to achieve last time that we only manged bst1.2 before working on bst2 what is planed for bst2 that will allow this to be achieved?

[...]


Links
===============================
[0]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1272
[1]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1273
[2]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2019-June/msg00015.html
[3]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1061
[4]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1127
[5]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/merge_requests/1851
[6]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2020-April/msg00005.html
[7]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2019-December/msg00023.html
[8]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/719
[9]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2020-January/msg00024.html
[10]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2019-December/msg00000.html
[11]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1262
[12]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2019-February/msg00057.html
[13]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1224
[14]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1068
[15]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2019-June/msg00004.html
[16]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2018-October/msg00077.html
[17]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/buildstream-list/2018-September/msg00028.html
[18]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/issues/569
[19]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1274
[20]: https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/1275
[21] https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/-/issues/38


_______________________________________________
buildstream-list mailing list
buildstream-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/buildstream-list



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]