On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 17:24 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > now rpmguard does various other things, so we'd need to filter out the > provision-removed (especially) results for this case. But we do at least > have this information being captured by autoqa, I think.
Erm, by 'filter out' (terrible choice of words) what I really meant is that, to catch unannounced dependency bumps but not anything else, we should look *only* at 'provision-removed' and 'provision-added' results, and ignore everything else. You could further process the results and look only for results with .so.[0-9] in them, I suppose. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
