No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
22 of 45 required tests failed, 15 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
Hello,
I had a bug report I thought it could be important but now it's too late,
so let's leave it for the next week.
Regards,
Lailah
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 04:06, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow, as there
> isn't a lot for the agenda. We
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190825.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190826.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 78
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 13.67 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 14:18 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I had a bug report I thought it could be important but now it's too
> late, so let's leave it for the next week.
In the meanwhile you can share it in the mailing list, isn't it?
Ciao,
A.
__
Sure, sorry, I forgot.
Cheers,
Lailah
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:23, wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 14:18 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a bug report I thought it could be important but now it's too
> > late, so let's leave it for the next week.
>
>
> In the meanwhi
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> 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
>
> S
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 13/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190825.n.0):
ID: 436097 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/436097
Old failures (same test faile
Hello all,
Alessio, the user I mentioned didn't touch SELinux to fix this issue.
That's why I said I don't think it's related. I'm not saying they are the
same bug, only saying there was a similar issue and it didn't seem to be
related to SELinux. And in that issues, the options were greyed out.
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 15:21 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> The problem is that it wasn't my computer and I'm still searching who
> had this problem to ask for more details.
Just for confirmation: such user was using Rawhide (or now F31), yes?
Thanks,
Alessio
_
Yes, F31.
I just found out there are similar problems in F30 Workstation too. I'll
try to gather more information.
Regards,
Lailah.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 15:32, wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 15:21 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> > The problem is that it wasn't my computer and I'm still searc
OLD: Fedora-31-20190825.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20190826.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 38
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 78.57 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
> filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
> blocking.
If this is the case, we can explicitly list the supported file systems in
criteria. The list would
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes
> wrote:
>
>> From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
>> filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
>> blocking.
>
>
> If this is the case, we can expli
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 19:33 +0200, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
> > > filesystems. I don't think that anyth
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the
> many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the
> beginning, it was not ready, but did show promise. This proposal came
> up for several releases in
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:48 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the
> > many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the
> > beginning, it was not ready, but
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > 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:
> >>
> >> http
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-08-24 at 07:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:00 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> I don't think we need someone to join the team per se. All we need is
> someone who we can assign bugs to and have them work through the issues,
> whether that's development or working with upstream to test. We have
> a fedora-btrfs bug alias
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:16 AM wrote:
> I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the installer)
> is work on BTRFS not a priority. It's something we can't benefit on
> RHEL and it could be almost completely replaced by LVM + xfs solution.
> However, it still giving us bugs and maki
20 matches
Mail list logo