Fedora-Rawhide-20190824.n.0 compose check report

2019-08-23 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 24 of 45 required tests failed, 11 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests: FAILED: compose.c

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-23 Thread Chris Murphy
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and > this got accepted as a release blocker: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388 Summary: This bug was introduced and discovered in linux-next, it starte

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-23 Thread Neal Gompa
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:48 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > Hey folks! > > > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and > > this got accepted as a release blocker: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-23 Thread Richard Shaw
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:48 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson > > So...what should we do? Here are the options as I see 'em: > > > > 1. Keep supporting btrfs > > 2. Just modify the criterion with a btrfs exception, even if it's weird > > 3. Rewrite the cri

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-23 Thread Justin Forbes
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and > this got accepted as a release blocker: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388 > > The bug was fixed, so that's fine, but along the way,

Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

2019-08-23 Thread Adam Williamson
Hey folks! So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and this got accepted as a release blocker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388 The bug was fixed, so that's fine, but along the way, Laura said this: "I'm strongly against anything with btrfs being a bl

Re: Fedora-29-updates-20190823.0 compose check report

2019-08-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 10:15 -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > On 8/22/19 10:46 PM, Fedora compose checker wrote: > > No missing expected images. > > > > Failed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64) > > > > ID: 434613 Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi > > URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj

Re: Fedora-29-updates-20190823.0 compose check report

2019-08-23 Thread Dusty Mabe
On 8/22/19 10:46 PM, Fedora compose checker wrote: > No missing expected images. > > Failed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64) > > ID: 434613Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi > URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/434613 > > Passed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64) > C

Fedora-31-20190823.n.0 compose check report

2019-08-23 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 16/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190822.n.0): ID: 434660 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/434660 ID: 434663 Test: x86_64 Wo

Fedora 31 compose report: 20190823.n.0 changes

2019-08-23 Thread Fedora Branched Report
OLD: Fedora-31-20190822.n.0 NEW: Fedora-31-20190823.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 75 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 158.44 MiB Size of dropped packages:1.89 MiB