The commit is for 2.4 M3 (5f6945f5031e1a4ca116cc1eccf4c2f9dc228547) 2.4 does contain the ptests for gzip, slang and flex. (Although there are some other mysteries, like sed-ptest is missing) It would seem that 2.2 had never contained (or lost a while ago) those ptests.
Juro ________________________________________ From: Cruz, Libertad Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 12:50 PM To: Bystricky, Juro; Richard Purdie; yocto@yoctoproject.org; Jolley, Stephen K; Zhang, Jessica Cc: Perez Carranza, Jose; Cruz Alcaraz, Juan M; Jordan, Robin L Subject: RE: QA cycle report for 2.2.2 rc2 Hello, Regarding 12080: this was a QA documentation error on the test steps, verified it again and changed the bug to not a bug, documented the correct steps for the QA. Regarding 12081: To open bugs on ptest we make a comparison from the last run in this case the comparison was made with 2.2.2 rc1 Ptest 5f6945f5031e1a4ca116cc1eccf4c2f9dc228547 which in turn was compared with Ptest 9ed748a542b520c1cb763d981969233c0f5efd4e which was compared with Ptest 8e15e9b6e478f6368034519b2a8fd3c7ea71d23b which was compared with Ptest 6bd890d9e011014cf323e61267f8b256949d44aa, they all hold this packages. Best Regards Libertad G. -----Original Message----- From: Bystricky, Juro Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 1:04 PM To: Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org>; Cruz, Libertad <libertad.c...@intel.com>; yocto@yoctoproject.org; Jolley, Stephen K <stephen.k.jol...@intel.com>; Zhang, Jessica <jessica.zh...@intel.com> Cc: Perez Carranza, Jose <jose.perez.carra...@intel.com>; Cruz Alcaraz, Juan M <juan.m.cruz.alca...@intel.com>; Jordan, Robin L <robin.l.jor...@intel.com> Subject: RE: QA cycle report for 2.2.2 rc2 Regarding 12081: Looking at some previous ptest results in: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/QA_sanity_history we can see that the offending tests (gzip, flex, slang) were not present in: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Ptest_62d7d4130202d8ede16abf9e7d779361ca70847e but started to appear after https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Ptest_6e20b31d5d17133e0fca086e12a0ad06ab5c4cc8 (flex) Also checking the manifest file, the offending test were also missing in http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-2.2.1/machines/genericx86-64/core-image-sato-sdk-ptest-genericx86-64.manifest So this is not a regression issue. Juro From: Richard Purdie [richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 9:50 AM To: Cruz, Libertad; yocto@yoctoproject.org; Jolley, Stephen K; Zhang, Jessica; Bystricky, Juro Cc: Perez Carranza, Jose; Cruz Alcaraz, Juan M; Jordan, Robin L Subject: Re: QA cycle report for 2.2.2 rc2 This is a tricky one to evaluate. Going through the bugs in the QA report: Bug 12075 - think this is ok to fix on the branch and release note Bug 12080 - we think minimal eSDK never worked in morty therefore this is a QA testing error? Bug 12073 - we continue to see various gpg errors even with master, propose not to block release on this and only fix master Bug 12009 - resolved and already fixed in 2.2.2 (I marked it resolved) Bug 11150 - was a bug with 2.2.1 but should be fixed in 2.2.2? Bug 11611 - was this found in 2.2.2? Bug 11064 - marked as resolved as per QA comment, fix was in 2.2.2 Bug 11597 - fix was added to 2.2.2 (marked as resolved) Bug 10460 - open and unresolved with master but not release blocker IMO Bug 11797 - can't see any backport but not a release blocker as the source mirrors work Bug 11109 - No backport afaict but not release blocker Which leave us with 12081 to understand before we can decide whether to release this or not. So the decision to release or not depends on QA agreeing with the resolution of 12080 and figuring out what happened with 12081. [Thanks to Ross for helping with some of this] Cheers, Richard On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 16:53 -0700, Cruz, Libertad wrote: > Here is the report for the 2.2.2 point release test cycle. > Full Report : https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW37_-_2017-09-13_- > _Full_Point_Release_Test_Cycle_2.2.2_rc2 > ======= Summary ======== > The QA cycle for point release 2.2.2 rc2 is complete. There are 3 new > bugs: bug 12080[2] blocks testing to the eSDK component since eSDK > functionalities cannot be executed. Bugs 12075[1], 12073[3], 12081[4] > don’t block full functionalities. > > LPT results are waiting to be updated by Windriver. > > Performance > Compared with 2.2.2 rc1 there was a regression of 14.71 while building > rootfs on Ubuntu, there was also a regression on Fedora while building > sato of 7.46% and a regression on kernel of 12.12%. > > > Ubuntu Test 2.2.2_rc1 > 2.2.2_rc2 % > sato 1:00:42 > 1:01:16 0.93 > rootfs 2:16 > 2:36 14.71 > rmwork 0:59:29 0:59:51 > 0.62 > kernel 5:01 > 5:00 -0.33 > eSDK 3:22 > 3:19 -1.49 > > > > > Fedora Test 2.2.2_rc1 > 2.2.2_rc2 % > sato 1:01:55 > 1:06:32 7.46 > rootfs 2:49 > 2:51 1.18 > rmwork 0:59:52 1:01:32 > 2.78 > kernel 6:03 > 6:47 12.12 > eSDK 3:44 > 3:54 4.46 > > > ptest > There was an improvement on the pass rate in the following packages in > comparison with 2.2.2 rc1: > gdk-pixbuf with 5% > libxml2 with 4.20% > lttng-tools with 3.20% > > On the other side there was a regression on the pass rate in > comparison with 2.2.2 rc1: > acl with 6.80% > e2fsprogs with 100% regression > gawk with .10% > quilt with 1.80% > valgrind of 53.10% > > > Compliance > Results are yet to be documented by Windriver. > > ======= QA-Hints======== > > There is only one concern on the eSDK component it cannot execute. QA > recommends an 2.2.2 rc3 to only verify the eSDK component. > > ======= Bugs ======== > > New Bugs > -12075[1] [morty] testimage quemux86/qemux86-64 lsb > tcgetattr: Input/output error^M > -12080[2] [Morty][Test Case 1605] > TCTEMP_2.3_AUTO_sdkext_eSDK_devtool_build_make > -12073[3] selftest: setUpClass failed failing on ubuntu > 17.04 (oeqa.selftest.signing.Signing) > -12081[4] [morty] PTEST: Package Name flex, gzip, slang, > do not appear in 2.2.2 rc2 > > Full Bug Report : https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW37_-_2017-09-1 > 3_-_Full_Point_Release_Test_Cycle_2.2.2_rc2#Bugs_Found_during_QA_Test > > > ======== Links ========= > > 1. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12075 [1] > 2. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12080 [2] > 3. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12073 [3] > 4. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12081 [4] > > > > Regards > Libertad G. -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
