On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:53:50 +0100
Tim Flink <tfl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:27:09 +0100
> Dan Horák <d...@danny.cz> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > I'm replying to your questions from December.
> >
> > yes, the secondary arches follow the same process as primary, they
> > have blocker bugs, etc. Also accepted blockers in secondary should be
> > promoted to Exceptions in primary, it would be nice to have such
> > "button" in the app for secondaries, but we can workaround it. It Also
> > means that the AcceptedBlocker/... states should be prefixed (or
> > suffixed) with the $arch to distinguish between primary/secondary
> > states.
>
> Yeah, I think it's worth talking about what all we'd want to have in a
> PA/SA unified blocker tracking app (SA blockers showing up as PA FEs,
> etc.) but that's still going to take some non-trivial re-writing. I'm
> not against doing it, but it's going to take time.
not a problem, the unified blocker app is a RFE and might be even
considered as part of the koji 2.0 development
> > For a start we could have own instances for arm/aarch64, ppc and s390,
> > but having a multi-arch blocker app in the future would be nice I
> > think. And if I see correctly, you will be on the DevConf so we can
> > talk about the requirements and options in person there.
>
> I think we forgot to get this figured out while at DevConf. I still
yeah, the breaks between the talks were too short for finding the needed
people in the hallways :-)
> don't see having multiple arch trackers in the same app happening
> before F22 but I'm still game for having instances for aarch64, ppc and
> s390 if that'd be helpful to the secarch folks.
>
> We might want to add some visual distinction between the PA and SA
> instances so there aren't any complaints about "secondary doesn't
> block primary!" but that's pretty easy to do and roll up in a new
> package.
have separate apps set for f22 will work well for us, what should be
the next step? shall I open a ticket somewhere?
Dan
>
> Tim
>
> > Dan
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:44:24 +0100
> > Normand <normand at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there,
> > > I used the blockerbugs application at
> > > https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug but found that
> > > this is restricted to the primary arch releases.
> >
> > Yeah, it wasn't really designed to handle releases on multiple arches.
> >
> > > Could it be possible to have it improved to support secondary arch
> > > releases (ppc64, s390, ...) ?
> >
> > I don't think that it could happen in time for F21 but I'm definitely
> > game for figuring out what changes need to happen in order for
> > secondary arches to use the blocker tracking app (either a new
> > instance or supporting multiple arches in the app).
> >
> > Do the secondary arch releases use the same process as primary arch
> > for blockers - tracker bzs for blocker/fe, AcceptedBlocker notation
> > etc.?
> >
> > Tim
> > _______________________________________________
> > qa-devel mailing list
> > qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
>
_______________________________________________
qa-devel mailing list
qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
