On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:25:48AM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > On 01/23/2018 05:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > The initial thought we - we being Tim, Kamil, Josef, Ralph and I - had > > is to simply invert the policy, if we can, so it becomes "the update > > passes *unless* we can find a 'fail' for any of the required tests". So > > all updates would be push-able (so far as this mechanism is concerned, > > ignoring all the old ones) until one of the gating tests definitely > > failed. > > This sounds like a reasonable workaround to me. > > > If we can't do that, we're going to just have to disable the gating > > again until this is sorted out; we're definitely of the opinion that > > Taskotron doesn't yet provide enough of a solid guarantee that all the > > tests will be run for a policy which *assumes* that will be the case to > > be viable. > > I agree, the gating is a bit too unreliable as is to stay in its current > state.
Well, we can remove dist.rpmdeplint but we have not had complain about the AtomicCI results gating so far, so let's not turn off everything entirely. Pierre
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
