On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 09:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
A further update on this: FESCo has voted on it and approved it:
https://pagure.io/
On 14. 01. 21 18:24, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 13:21 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 01. 21 13:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
As feedback on this was mostly positive, I went ahead and did the work.
The PR for the Greenwave policy has been merged a
On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 13:21 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 14. 01. 21 13:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > As feedback on this was mostly positive, I went ahead and did the work.
> > > The PR for the Greenwave policy has been merged already, as that does
> > > not
On 14. 01. 21 13:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
As feedback on this was mostly positive, I went ahead and did the work.
The PR for the Greenwave policy has been merged already, as that does
not in itself cause any actual behaviour change:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/
Adam Williamson wrote:
> As feedback on this was mostly positive, I went ahead and did the work.
> The PR for the Greenwave policy has been merged already, as that does
> not in itself cause any actual behaviour change:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/349
>
> The PR for Bodhi
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 09:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
As feedback on this was mostly positive, I went ahead and did the work.
The PR for
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
Sounds like an excellent idea.
Brian
--
Brian C. Lane (PST8PDT) - weldr.i
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Just to be clear: We're working under the assumption that autopush and
> the other policies we have in place now *reduces* the rate at which
> mistakes are made with the lowest amount of maintainer overhead.
And that is the basic assumption that I have a hard time believ
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 12:09 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> To rephrase their statements in my own words (and correct me if I get
> them wrong):
> Kevin is suggesting that he believes that maintainers should be the
> sole arbiters of when a package is pushed, not that maintainers are
> infallible
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 15:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > And, also hopefully also a rare occasion, but if this were enabled (and
> > > the definitions up to date), problems like
> > >
> > https://li
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 15:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > And, also hopefully also a rare occasion, but if this were enabled (and
> > the definitions up to date), problems like
> >
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/us...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thre
Matthew Miller wrote:
> And, also hopefully also a rare occasion, but if this were enabled (and
> the definitions up to date), problems like
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/us...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CAS6KHTZLR6LUNWEVK3BOIO6HVNQDETZ/#N5HJDKMTGOTL44BT2HZ43LE6Q23345IQ
> wou
On 11. 01. 21 15:28, David Cantrell wrote:
On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 12:27:32PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
the failure being waved). If the test is broken, fix the test
On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 12:27:32PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
the failure being waved). If the test is broken, fix the test.
Some tests are permanently broken. For e
On 11. 01. 21 5:26, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 00:46 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 01. 21 23:25, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
packages where i
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 00:46 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 01. 21 23:25, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
> > > > packages where it matters the most.
> > >
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:46:04AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I believe we should gate on installability first.
> See https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2343
That also seems to be a useful thing to gate on, but from
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2343#comment-626780, it doesn't seem
straightforward. S
On 10. 01. 21 23:25, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
packages where it matters the most.
But...if the tests pass it doesn't, and I already said that the tests
pretty m
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
> > packages where it matters the most.
>
> But...if the tests pass it doesn't, and I already said that the tests
> pretty much always pass and I actively w
On Sun, 2021-01-10 at 19:25 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > This is basically what this thread is asking. If we make a test mandatory,
> > no updates will be pushed when this test fails unless the failure is
> > waived.
> >
> > So it seems we are all in agreeme
On Sun, 2021-01-10 at 12:44 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:32 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2021-01-09 at 12:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > I think we should get to the point where it blocks m
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> This is basically what this thread is asking. If we make a test mandatory,
> no updates will be pushed when this test fails unless the failure is
> waived.
>
> So it seems we are all in agreement!
Not all. I am still opposed to this. We already have too many mandatory
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:44:42PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Sure, but perhaps we should establish a means to evaluate the
> usefulness of tests on a regular cadence. Tests *can* provide value,
> let's not kid ourselves, but if we just turn them on and train people
> to ignore and waive them, then
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:32 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-01-09 at 12:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
> > > the failure being waved). If the test
On Sat, 2021-01-09 at 12:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
> > the failure being waved). If the test is broken, fix the test.
>
> Some tests are permanently broken. Fo
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 05:24:11PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
> >
> > Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
>
On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
the failure being waved). If the test is broken, fix the test.
Some tests are permanently broken. For example rpminspect-pipeline -
filesize.
It's okay when the size of the fi
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 23:26 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 01. 21 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > > So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
> > >
> > > Well, if (and as long as) the gat
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 21:34 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I think you've got this backwards, Kevin. This is about disabling the
> > autopush if any of those tests fail. So the result would be that
> > critical path packages would get 1) more testing before the
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:26:57PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
> >>prevent a manual push (as yet another requirement), I withdraw my objection.
> >
> >I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (with
On 08. 01. 21 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
prevent a manual push (as yet anoth
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
>
> Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
> prevent a manual push (as yet another requirement), I withdraw my objec
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I think you've got this backwards, Kevin. This is about disabling the
> autopush if any of those tests fail. So the result would be that
> critical path packages would get 1) more testing before the existing
> autopush occurs and 2) if any of those tests fail, it won't ge
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:26 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
>
+1, awesome
I'm glad I'm not going to be that person that everybody pokes when
some
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:09 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> > we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
>
> -1
>
> We already enforce too strict requirements on updates,
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 03:08 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> > we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
>
> -1
>
> We already enforce too strict requirements on updat
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
-1
We already enforce too strict requirements on updates, *especially* those
that deliberately or accidentally end up in the "critic
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 22:35 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 01. 21 18:25, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > What do people think of this idea? Any questions? Thanks!
>
> I'd like to see the critpath definition up to date before we do this.
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8948
It doesn't really m
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 20:58 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey folks!
> >
> > So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> > we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA test
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:13:44PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Right, sorry. I mean the actual list of packages. It is a matter of
> getting automation in place, yes.
That sounds sensible then. I don't want to block on getting the actual
critical path list perfect. Start blocking on stuff, and if
On 07. 01. 21 22:45, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:35:14PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
What do people think of this idea? Any questions? Thanks!
I'd like to see the critpath definition up to date before we do this.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8948
Do you mean the critpa
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:35:14PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >What do people think of this idea? Any questions? Thanks!
>
> I'd like to see the critpath definition up to date before we do this.
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8948
Do you mean the critpath definition itself or the realizati
On 07. 01. 21 18:25, Adam Williamson wrote:
What do people think of this idea? Any questions? Thanks!
I'd like to see the critpath definition up to date before we do this.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8948
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
+1
> The result of this would be that critpath updates could not go stable
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 11:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 18:48 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> > Il 07/01/21 18:25, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> > > ...snip...
> > >
> > > Implementing this would be relatively simple, and would involve two
> > > things: adding some
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 18:48 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 07/01/21 18:25, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> > ...snip...
> >
> > Implementing this would be relatively simple, and would involve two
> > things: adding some new bits to Fedora's greenwave policy definition,
> > and patching Bo
Il 07/01/21 18:25, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> ...snip...
>
> Implementing this would be relatively simple, and would involve two
> things: adding some new bits to Fedora's greenwave policy definition,
> and patching Bodhi to use a different decision_context for greenwave
> queries for non-critpa
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:02:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 09:48 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> > > we
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 09:48 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey folks!
> >
> > So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> > we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
> ...snip...
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:48:03AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> +1 from me. Lets do it!
>
> So, this would only be updates to stable branches right?
>
> Or would it also include critical path updates in rawhide?
I'd like to see it happen in Rawhide too. Get things caught and fixed
sooner, less ma
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
YES.
> But recently I was editing the Fedora greenwave config and realized
> there's actu
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:25:44AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
...snip...
+1 from me. Lets do it!
So, this would only be updates to stable
Hey folks!
So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
Currently we run a set of ~50 tests on every critpath update. For an
F33 update this is the set:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/overview?dist
53 matches
Mail list logo
