On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 06:44 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > Hello, > > I have been spoken to by Marcela Mašláňová about "The Future of FTBFS". See > this thread: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-April/150310.html > > IIUC (Is there an abbreviation for "I'm not a developer"?) the problem is as > follows: > > * Matt Domsch from Dell used to rebuild *all* packages from Rawhide > periodically (so-called "mass rebuild"). When some package failed to build, > he reported errors against that package. > > * This testing ensured we often find build problems early in the release > process. Without it there is a chance that we discover the build failures > only when a new build of that package is required, which may be shortly > before final release or even after that. That's a problem. > > * Mass-rebuilds in Koji are not done frequently (maybe once a year), so they > can't cover this issue. > > * Matt can't do this testing anymore. Marcela asked me whether AutoQA could > be used for that. Matt's tools (scripts, etc) should be available. > > * I asked Marcela to inquire more about some details. I have attached the > discussion below (read from bottom up). > > > What are your thoughts? Is that something AutoQA can and should handle? Do we > (will we) have enough hardware to be able to do that? According to our > current priorities, is that even something we are able to implement in some > reasonable time (under a year)? > > As for the last question, I think it clearly fits our current effort to > provide generic Fedora-related tests. OTOH we still have many generic tests > to finish (either un-started or semi-finished) and before that we need to > concentrate on architecture first (ResultDB etc.). I'm afraid to have complex > tests running without solid architecture basis beneath it. In that respect > unless we all agree this is a top-priority next-to-work-on test (and provided > that we have enough hardware for it) I don't think we're able to run it soon. > > Do we need some more information I should ask Matt for?
I can't see a ton of technical limitations on why AutoQA couldn't manage this workflow. The big issue that jumps out to me are resources (homand and hardware). I don't believe we have hardware capacity to run this workflow now, can the current hardware be loaned to Fedora? Additionally, running, maintaining and reviewing the scripts/results appears to be a significant effort. Is there anyone (rel-eng or devel) volunteering to maintain the scripts needed for rebuilds? Thanks, James
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ autoqa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
