[Test-Announce] Proposal to cancel: 2017-09-25 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi, we'll be heavily focusing on F27 Beta testing and I don't know about any urgent topic to discuss, so I propose we cancel this meeting. If you have any topics, please send them to test list and we'll discuss them there. Thanks, Kamil ___

[Test-Announce] 2017-09-25 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 27 Blocker Review Meeting

# F27 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-09-25 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We currently have quite a few proposed Beta blockers, so let's have a Fedora 27 blocker review meeting. If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed

[Test-Announce] 2017-09-25 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 27 Blocker Review Meeting

# F27 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-09-25 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We currently have quite a few proposed Beta blockers, so let's have a Fedora 27 blocker review meeting. If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed

[Test-Announce] Proposal to cancel: 2017-09-25 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi, we'll be heavily focusing on F27 Beta testing and I don't know about any urgent topic to discuss, so I propose we cancel this meeting. If you have any topics, please send them to test list and we'll discuss them there. Thanks, Kamil ___

[Test-Announce] 2017-09-18 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 27 Blocker Review Meeting

# F27 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-09-18 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We currently have quite a few proposed Beta blockers, so let's have a Fedora 27 blocker review meeting. If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed

[Test-Announce] Proposal to cancel: 2017-09-18 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi, we'll be heavily focusing on F27 Beta testing and I don't know about any urgent topic to discuss, so I propose we cancel this meeting. If you have any topics, please send them to test list and we'll discuss them there. Thanks, Kamil ___

[Test-Announce] 2017-09-18 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 27 Blocker Review Meeting

# F27 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-09-18 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We currently have quite a few proposed Beta blockers, so let's have a Fedora 27 blocker review meeting. If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed

[Test-Announce] Proposal to cancel: 2017-09-18 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi, we'll be heavily focusing on F27 Beta testing and I don't know about any urgent topic to discuss, so I propose we cancel this meeting. If you have any topics, please send them to test list and we'll discuss them there. Thanks, Kamil ___

Re: Merging two updates

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 20:43 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga > > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Is it possible to merge updates in

Re: Fedora 27 Beta blocker status mail #1

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 14:10 +0200, Lukas Brabec wrote: > > > * The Cloud tests appear never to have been run during this cycle. > > > > This doesn't count? > >

Re: Fedora 27 Beta blocker status mail #1

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Test coverage > - > > Looking at https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/27/ , > some things jump out... > > * The Cloud tests appear never to have been run during this cycle. > * Most of the

Re: [Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2017-09-11 Fedora QA Meeting (and blocker review meeting)

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. There's > nothing urgent to discuss that I'm aware of, and the focus for this > coming week will likely be Beta validation testing. There *will* be a

Re: FEK Captcha issue

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Jonathan Calloway < jonathancallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > > Does anyone have an idea when the captcha issue in FEK will be fixed? > > . . Just course. . . > > > I don't know, but the bug is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445703 and

Re: Need help ?

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Ellen OSullivan wrote: > I'm a newbie, would like to help out with something. I'm dev/qa > automation at work but fairly new to Linux. Willing to clean the floors, > make the coffee :-) > Hi Ellen, if you familiarize yourself with testing

Re: Upcoming changes for rpmgrill

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Róman Joost wrote: > Heya, > > just wanted to give everyone a heads up for some of the upcoming changes > in a new rpmgrill release. > > The rpmgrill tool now exits with an exit code of 1 in case of test > failures, 0 if all tests ran

Re: touchpad became funny after last update

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:38 AM, František Zatloukal < frantis...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hey, > same issue here, tracking broken update and reporting bug still on "todo" > :) ; T440s > > List of updated packages in dnf update after which I started to experience > these issues: >

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 27 Branched 20170817.n.3 nightly compose nominated for testing

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > The individual test result pages are: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_27_ > Branched_20170817.n.3_Installation > > Hey, > > I noticed that the page for network install only has the

Re: Deprecating rpmgrill-fetch-build and rpmgrill-analyze-local

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Róman Joost wrote: > Hi, > > The rpmgrill tool ships with two commands which I think can be > deprecated: > > rpmgrill-fetch-build in favour of `koji download-task` > rpmgrill-analyze-local in favour of rpmgrill-unpack; rpmgrill

Re: Outdated clamav database in Taskotron

> > > > So maybe the ClamAV definitions should be treated similarly? In > > > a separate package which gets updated on a regular interval to pull in > > > the latest data? > > > > > > > That would be the best solution here, yes. Could someone please file an > RFE > > against clamav? > Done: > >

Re: 0Day policy update

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: > Hi, > > as discussed in thread [1] I would like to propose update of the > blocker process SOP page [2] regarding Accepted0Day and > AcceptedPreviousRelease. Currently we have in the policy the following > statement: > >

Re: 0Day policy update

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: > Hi, > > as discussed in thread [1] I would like to propose update of the > blocker process SOP page [2] regarding Accepted0Day and > AcceptedPreviousRelease. Currently we have in the policy the following > statement: > >

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > > Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the > > Blocker bug process with your proposal. > > > > And there is one more topic

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:59 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > > Thanks Adam for putting this together. I am definitely+1 to extend the > > Blocker bug process with your proposal. > > > > And there is one more topic

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release (round 2)

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi, folks! > > > > So there was some great feedback on the first version of this proposal; > here's the second draft, with all the suggestions

Re: 'No More Alphas': wiki revision drafts

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! So I've (finally) got ready an initial round of draft > changes to various wiki pages for the purpose of implementing the 'No > More Alphas' Change. You can find all the drafts in the NoMoreAlphas >

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > To necromance this old thread, I wanted to give a heads up that we're > about to get a cool feature in Bodhi in response to this thread: > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1678 > > With that pull

Re: Outdated clamav database in Taskotron

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Dan Callaghan <dcall...@redhat.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Róman Joost's message of 2017-08-02 10:18 +10:00: > > Dear Petr, > > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at

all projects moved to pagure

Hello, we've moved all our projects from bitbucket (and github, in case of testcloud) to pagure. You'll need to update the remote sources for (or re-clone) all projects that you have checked out and were hosted outside of pagure. You can find the new locations of our projects in this list:

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand > is > > why you think existing bugs should be trea

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:02:09AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > But all of that above is a separate problem. What I'd like to understand > is > > why you think existing bugs should be trea

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > > > something that also affects the current

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:24:16PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > > > something that also affects the current

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

The proposal sounds fine. On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > something that also affects the current release (either as released or > with updates)? If something is a

Re: Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release

The proposal sounds fine. On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Another consideration that might be relevant: is this a *new* issue or > something that also affects the current release (either as released or > with updates)? If something is a

Re: F26 dnf makecache timer hanging

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > [chris@f26s ~]$ sudo dnf update > Waiting for process with pid 3379 to finish. > ^CKeyboardInterrupt: Terminated. > I haven't seen this exact problem (timer blocking standard dnf command), but I started experience

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Reduce Initial Setup Redundancy

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > OK, I see the problem. > > On the one hand, systemd needs fixed, as disabled root account is already > a popular pattern on the largest Linux distro out there. This is an issue > for rescue prompts too. That

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Reduce Initial Setup Redundancy

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > User Account > > Currently, users have the option of creating the initial user account > in Anaconda, or not. Anaconda does not require this if the user sets a > root password. Users who do not create a user account in

Re: Status report on Flatpaks in Fedora Infrastructure

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > I've just submitted a change proposal for creating Flatpaks out of Fedora > package content: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Graphical_ > Applications_as_Flatpaks > > This is submitted as a F27 change proposal,

Re: Criteria proposal: remove media part of release notes criterion

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:12:16PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Oh, sorry -- I read too quickly and I'm doing too many things at once. > > I'd like to consider dropping packaged release notes entirely -- but

Re: FEK requiring Captcha?

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Jonathan Calloway < jonathancallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > > I was trying to do some update testing this morning. However, I am > getting a message in Fedora Easy Karma (FEK) that says it requires a > Captcha key: > > Traceback (most recent call last): >

Re: [Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2017-06-26 Fedora QA Meeting

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Silvia Sanchez wrote: > > Where is the the Blocker review meeting? > See the *other* email in test-announce :-) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email

Taskotron: depcheck task replaced by rpmdeplint

If you are a Fedora packager, you might be interested to know that in Taskotron we replaced the depcheck task with rpmdeplint task.

Taskotron: depcheck task replaced by rpmdeplint

If you are a Fedora packager, you might be interested to know that in Taskotron we replaced the depcheck task with rpmdeplint task.

Re: running MTF tests in taskotron

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > The way I envision this is that the test would be invoked via taskotron's > API, > something like: > > $ taskotron trigger --koji-build= > > The CLI tool would contact taskotron's API and would submit a new test >

Re: improving upgrade testcases templates

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 21:40 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Thoughts? Objections to putting it to production? > > Overall, I think this is fine, nice job. I do kinda hate that you have >

improving upgrade testcases templates

Hello, I wanted to tweak a gnome-software upgrade test case [1] lately, and realized that... I can't. I got lost in the number of templates it's composed from (try it yourself). Even if you know wiki templates basics, it was too difficult to even find the page containing the source text that I

Re: Testing request: libdb and F26 upgrades

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! > > So as you may have read, F26 Beta was held up by a tricky bug which > causes upgrades to hang in some situations: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397087 >

Re: [Test-Announce] Re: Fedora 26 Candidate Beta-1.3 Available Now!

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Alessio Ciregia wrote: > 2017-05-31 9:50 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson : > >> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 06:57 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote: >> > According to the schedule [1], Fedora 26 Candidate Beta-1.3 is now

Re: Verification testings and processes.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Ryan wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I gave a shot at running a verification test. I was looking at > Fedora_26_Branched_20170513.n.0 installation >

Re: Updating the applications and launchers policy

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/22/2017 10:13 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently we have the following as a final blocker criterion: > > > > "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply > with

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different software on > > different architectures? It might make perfect s

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're > > trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a > bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is > that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the >

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > The #expr stuff is basically a reinvention of the FedoraVersionNumber > template; that template transcludes CurrentFedoraVersion, so if we just > substitute FedoraVersionNumber (or FedoraVersion) it doesn't

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Gilliard wrote: > I added download links and test results to this > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Template: > Installation_test_matrix=next=491518#Fedora_Media_Writer > Please edit these changes if this is in error > >

Re: 2017-04-24 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Devel Meeting

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Tim Flink wrote: > # Fedora QA Devel Meeting > # Date: 2017-04-24 > # Time: 14:00 UTC > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) > # Location: #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net I won't be around today, sorry.

Re: [Test-Announce] 2017-04-24 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting > # Date: 2017-04-24 > # Time: 15:00 UTC > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) > # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net > > Greetings testers! >

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > That's the question though - is it required? I thought the test case would > be marked as optional. We already require FMW in "Default boot and install" > matrix, so Fedora is covered (we j

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > We'll also probably want "Fedora 26" (Branched at that time) column. > > Eh, I intentionally left it out because we've always held that being > able to write images from the new release is much less

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Lukas Brabec wrote: > > Current media writer supports ARM, I would propose to add a row for > it, so it could look like this: > > WindowsmacOSFedora 24Fedora 25 > x86_64 iso > arm image > We'll also

Re: Re-Scheduling Jobs for Taskotron as a User

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Tim Flink wrote: > One of the things that seems like it is and will be a pain point for > folks writing package-specific tasks is how to work through the times > when there was an issue in the task and things didn't run well. At the > moment,

Re: On testing docker base images

> > Yes and no. The base image we build today only contains > components from one module, Base Runtime, however, that > will definitely change for F27 (and possibly even for F26). > We expect to use components from composes made of multiple > different modules. > > Therefore I'm more interested

Re: Critpath - questions

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Michal Schorm wrote: > Hi, > > some questions about Critpath, I was not able to find, looking at [1] > and [2] > . > >

Re: On testing docker base images

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Petr Šabata wrote: > For the Boltron deliverable (the Modularity thing) we would like > to build, test and ship a Base Runtime / Boltron docker base > image. Now, the whole process is still not entirely clear to me > so I'll just go ahead and

Re: [Test-Announce] 2017-03-27 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Mike Ruckman wrote: > # F26 Blocker Review meeting > # Date: 2017-03-27 > # Time: 16:00 UTC > # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi, I won't attend today, I'm sick. ___

Re: per-arch tasks strategy in Taskotron

> Getting ppc64 or ppc64le machines should be only matter of filling a > ticket with fedora infra, these arches are part of the fedora cloud. > aarch64 is going to added soon. Thanks for info. The problem is not that much in having hardware (I think), but in preparing tailored disk images for

Re: per-arch tasks strategy in Taskotron

> Hello, > > I want to consult our current strategy regarding per-arch tasks. We currently > have no such tasks, all of them are generic (they can run on any host system > and test any single or multiple item arches). I want to convert > task-rpmdeplint [1] to arch-specific, to avoid a race

per-arch tasks strategy in Taskotron

Hello, I want to consult our current strategy regarding per-arch tasks. We currently have no such tasks, all of them are generic (they can run on any host system and test any single or multiple item arches). I want to convert task-rpmdeplint [1] to arch-specific, to avoid a race condition [2].

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 26 Candidate Alpha-1.1 Available Now!

> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 26 Candidate Alpha-1.1 is now > available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation > testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan > > Test coverage

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

> On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 04:31 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > The job can - and already does - log the exact packages it actually > > > got, but I don't think there's an easy way for it to take the > > > 'last_modified' date for the update at the time it does the d

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

> > There's one important thing we need to do first, though. Bodhi ID > > doesn't identify the thing tested uniquely, because Bodhi updates are > > mutable (and the ID is kept). So Bodhi (or any gating tools) can't > > rely on just retrieving the latest result for a particular Bodhi ID > > and

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

> Hi folks! > > I am currently rolling out some changes to the Fedora openQA deployment > which enable a new testing workflow. From now on, a subset of openQA > tests should be run automatically on every critpath update, both on > initial submission and on any edit of the update. > > For the

Re: Semi-automated (and automated) testing of laptops for Fedora

> Hi, > > we are currently looking into enabling us to test laptops more > effectively. There are two main parts to the issue, which is to >    1. have a system to run semi-automated tests on a standalone machine >   and submit the results to an online server ("Fedora Tested Laptops") >   

Re: Trigger changes - call for comments

> Hey, gang! > As with the ExecDB, I took some time to try and formalize what I think is to > be done with Trigger in the near-ish future. > Since it came to my attention, that the internal G-Docs can not be accessed > outside of RH, this time, it is shared from my personal account - hopefully >

Re: Taskotron CI in Taskotron

> So, the repo now has working PoC > https://pagure.io/taskotron/task-taskotron-ci > Readme contains example on how to run the task. > Works on my setup, and I'd be glad if somebody else tried. I tried, and it didn't eat my laptop. Also it worked. Good job. /me throws cookies at jskladan

Re: Taskotron CI in Taskotron

> On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 14:46 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > The only problem with this kind of testing is, that we still don't really > > > have a good way to test trigger, as it is tied to external events. My > > > idea > > > here was that I coul

Re: Taskotron CI in Taskotron

> The only problem with this kind of testing is, that we still don't really > have a good way to test trigger, as it is tied to external events. My idea > here was that I could add something like wiki edit consumer, and trigger > tasks off of that, making that one "triggering" edit from inside the

Re: Libtaskotron - allow non-cli data input

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Kamil Paral < kpa...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > This is what I meant - keeping item as is, but being able to pass another > > > structure to the formula, which can then be used from it. I'd still like > > > to > > >

Re: [Test-Announce] 2017-02-13 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting > # Date: 2017-02-13 > # Time: 16:00 UTC > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) > # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net > > Greetings testers! > > We haven't met for a while - sorry about that! It's been a pretty busy > time and

Re: making test suites work the same way

> Well, after more discussions with kparal, we are still unsure about the > "right" way to tackle this. > Our current call would be: > 1) sync requirements.txt versions with fedora (mostly done) > 2) allow --system-site-packages in the test_env > 3) do `pip install -r requirements.txt` (with

[Test-Announce] Cancelling 2017-02-06 meetings

Hello, we have AdamW on the plane and no QA meeting can be ever complete without AdamW :-) Joking aside, there's only 1 proposed blocker for F26 Alpha, so there should be no harm in cancelling both QA and Blocker Review meeting today. If there are any topics you'd like to discuss, please start

[Test-Announce] Cancelling 2017-02-06 meetings

Hello, we have AdamW on the plane and no QA meeting can be ever complete without AdamW :-) Joking aside, there's only 1 proposed blocker for F26 Alpha, so there should be no harm in cancelling both QA and Blocker Review meeting today. If there are any topics you'd like to discuss, please start

welcome Fedora Quality Planet

Hello, I've set up a Quality sub-planet for Fedora Planet, available here: http://fedoraplanet.org/quality/ The purpose is to have a single place where people can read and subscribe to quality-related news and information. Here's an introductory blogpost with more details and instructions how

welcome Fedora Quality Planet

Hello, I've set up a Quality sub-planet for Fedora Planet, available here: http://fedoraplanet.org/quality/ The purpose is to have a single place where people can read and subscribe to quality-related news and information. Here's an introductory blogpost with more details and instructions how

Re: Migration of Fedora QA from fedorahosted to pagure

> What we've wound up with is slightly unusual, because we now have > fedora-qa as both a namespace and a repository name. We have stuff > like: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/fedfind > https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/os-autoinst-distri-fedora > > but we also have just https://pagure.io/fedora-qa

Re: criterion adjustment proposal: demote optical media support

> Hi, > > as discussed in "future of official optical media support in Fedora" thread > in devel list [1], we agreed to decrease the importance and testing of > optical media support for Fedora release composes, and block on just several > specific images. This is a concrete proposal to adjust

Re: Migration of Fedora QA from fedorahosted to pagure

> Hi, > The migration will taken place on 20th Jan from 6:00 UTC to 14:00 UTC > The demo repository has been setted up here[1]. > The repo includes following:- > 1. Roadmap contains all the milestone. > 2. There are 5 levels of priority: > 1. Blocker > 2. Critical > 3. Major > 4. Minor > 5.

Re: Fedora Rawhide cannot boot up after upgrade to 20170117 snapshot

> On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 08:15 -0600, Bowen Wang wrote: > > Is there any possibilities that it is caused by gnome-shell or other > > component of GNOME? > > It is pretty similar to a bug that happen about 1 month ago. > > Well, sure, it's one of the suspects. Others would be the 3D rendering >

criterion adjustment proposal: demote optical media support

Hi, as discussed in "future of official optical media support in Fedora" thread in devel list [1], we agreed to decrease the importance and testing of optical media support for Fedora release composes, and block on just several specific images. This is a concrete proposal to adjust our release

Re: Fedora Media Writer release schedule (was Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table)

> This is related to validation tests, but different enough that I wanted > a new thread. While we *can* release new versions of FMW on > getfedora.org at Fedora GA, there's no reason to tie the two together — > and really, some good ones to *not* double up: > > * we can fix bugs without waiting

Re: Proposal: Migrating More Git Projects to Pagure

> This came up in the qadevel meeting today and I wanted to put a bit > more detail out. > > Bitbucket was never intended to be the long-term home for our git > projects - I think we're about the only folks in Fedora using it and > it's not free software. As fedorahosted is closed down, we need

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

> I'd consider focusing on using checkisomd5 as the main way to test if FMW > works ok. First the offline one and then online one running from the flash > drive before bootup. That's actually a very good advice for the test case. As Martin showed me recently, running simply "checkisomd5

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

> >> > Well I don't really want to eat a hat, because I've had my fill for a > >> > lifetime, but I'd eat my hat if FMW works on Windows 10 but does not > >> > work on Windows 7. Or vice versa. > >> > ... > >> > >> It does not work on Windows 7 for some folks. On my laptop with Win 7, > >> it > >>

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

> Hi folks! So I finally got around to that 'think about USB test > coverage' item that's been on my todo list forever. > > I propose we add a table to the Installation Validation page. The > purpose is simply to check that writing images is working with > mediawriter in the major supported

Re: Validation test proposal: mediawriter testing table

> > Well I don't really want to eat a hat, because I've had my fill for a > > lifetime, but I'd eat my hat if FMW works on Windows 10 but does not > > work on Windows 7. Or vice versa. > > ... > > It does not work on Windows 7 for some folks. On my laptop with Win 7, it > works. I've got a

Re: future of official optical media support in Fedora

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Chris Murphy > wrote: > >If you > > pick Server or Cloud Edition using Everything netinstall, you get ext4 > > on LVM with a massive /home volume rather unsuitable for servers, and > > no free space in the VG for docker-storage-setup to

Re: future of official optical media support in Fedora

> > > Idea #2: Do not block on optical media issues for Final release for > > > certain > > > flavors/image types (Server, netinst) > > > ~~~ > > The outcome seems to be we should block on Workstation Live and Everything >

Re: Enabling running Taskotron tasks on Koji scratch builds

> Couldn't we use the task ID as the primary identifier but use the srpm > for readability sake since there is no "build" NVR for scratch builds? Systems like new hotness will need to query according to the task ID, though (to get reliable results). So we're talking about hacking just resultsdb

Re: future of official optical media support in Fedora

Let's close this up. > > Idea #1: Do not block on optical media issues for Alpha and Beta releases > > ~ Nobody argued against this since last time, so I'm going to propose criterion adjustment on the test list. > > Idea

Re: future of official optical media support in Fedora

> Qemu CD/DVD device and actual optical drives should have the same > dependency. I know the example case [1] it was a BIOS bug that > syslinux was able to work around with an update. We'd never find such > a thing unless someone runs into it with affected hardware, which did > happen and that's

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >