On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:33:01PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 at 20:16, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:25:56PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > There are three tests that must pass in order for updates to go to > > > > stable: > > > > 0. dist.depcheck - to make sure the update's dependencies are available. > > > > 1. dist.abicheck - to make sure the update's ABI remains stable in a > > > > given Fedora release. > > > ... > > > > Finally, if it turns out you need to push an update through despite of > > > > the > > > > test results, you can do so using waiver-cli (dnf install waiverdb-cli). > > > > We are working on integrating this into Bodhi itself, making this > > > > easier. > > > I think it unwise to make item 1 a mandatory item at this point. I'd > > > argue > > > a large number of packages do not provide public api/abi that's worth > > > worrying about in this regard. > > > > I think we should definine a set of packages where we care about this, > > and enable it on a case-by-case basis and make it advisory otherwise. > > That makes sense. How about we start with critical path packages? > Alternatively, libraries which a lot of of other packages depend on > would be good candidates.
A thought - we need a defined process for changing and proposing changes to the greenwave policy. Right now, it reflects a proof of concept list that "we just made up" to get this up and running. At the moment, anyone in the 'sysadmin-qa' group is able to make changes to it. Should FESCo be involved? QA? FPC? I want to fix tooling issues, but don't want to be the policy arbiter. Let's get ourselves unblocked for now and then start figuring out some process around this stuff.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
