We are used to tag mock-core-configs to infra repositories because mock-core-configs is not used on the official Koji builders. This way we get updated mock configs to Fedora Copr builders ASAP.
mock-core-configs
Is it OK to tag mock this way, too? Currently, there's mock-2.16 that we'd like to have on Fedora Copr builders, but Bodhi updates are stuck (orthogonal issue, doesn't affect Fedora Copr or Koji use-case).
mock-2.16
I would tag that package to the infra repos a long time ago, but I was afraid it could get distributed to Koji builders automatically - and I don't want to do this without confirmation.
Yes, I would think it would be fine to tag it as long as you don't know or/see/anticipate any breakage in the koji use case.
The actual update would only get applied the next time to we do a mass update/reboot cycle or manually update builders for some reason.
Thanks for the answer!
We are trying to avoid such changes in Mock upstream (and if, they would be reported in advance before submitted for Bodhi update).
I'm not sure I fully understand the process :-) but I suppose it is a manual one, so if the updated mock caused some issues it would be tested in the staging environment first, or so?
I'll forward this info to Copr team. And I'm tagging v2.16 to F35 infra now.
Metadata Update from @praiskup: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Yes, the process is manual and yes, it should be tested in staging first. :)