Fedora-Cloud-35-20211220.0 compose check report

2021-12-20 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211219.0): ID: 1089892 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Fedora-Cloud-34-20211220.0 compose check report

2021-12-20 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211219.0): ID: 1089908 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Re: is an accidentally reverted Fedora feature/change a blocker?

2021-12-20 Thread Chris Murphy
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 1:17 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > But it does seem like we should have _some_ set of automated testing that's > linked to intentional, acccepted changes. Nano-as-default in Fedora Server > is another one. > Yeah, nano also vanished from Server edition in the 35 cycle. Once

Re: is an accidentally reverted Fedora feature/change a blocker?

2021-12-20 Thread Ben Cotton
I generally agree with Adam's points. We don't want to add tests for every accepted Change proposal. In particular, the "updating X to version Y". That said, I think we should be checking for certain paradigm-shift or otherwise notable changes. Changes to the default filesystem, moving to Wayland b