On Sat, 2016-07-16 at 14:35 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:44:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 11:41 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >
> > > If I should provide "how to test" information, it should be probably
> > > script whic
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:44:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 11:41 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > If I should provide "how to test" information, it should be probably
> > script which should be run by AutoQA or something. But TBH, I have no
> > idea how to provide such sc
> Oh no, that is not what we're aiming for. We are aiming for a set of
> automated *sanity tests* that run for every update. Over time maybe
> we could add regression tests to it that can't be added to the
> upstream testsuite for some reason (requiring root privs for example,
> much easier to do
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> I think the functionality you're talking about (checking correctness of bug
> fixes, etc) should be left to the original bug reporters. After all, they
> raised the issue so they are invested in the result.
Agreed.
> Automation
On 07/13/2016 01:38 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally
unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high
here. Even with all the recent volunteers, we
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 11:41 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 12.7.2016 v 18:49 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> >
> >
> > The idea is this: there could be a requirement for all packages to
> > provide at least *some* kind of 'how to test' information.
>
> If the package should be tested by human,
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 10:21 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/07/16 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
>
> That's irrelevant. If a sourc
Il 13/07/2016 05:01, Siddhesh Poyarekar ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:23:26PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
nonsense - it's enough to give a sign that a potential fix don't break
things wich worked before
hi
this should break at least wildfly ... and if they run/build in
https://apps.
On 07/13/2016 08:17 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
But then we're setting the bar too low by allowing *anyone* to set
karma for the sake of it. You might as well just let developers push
packages to stable if they're 'confident' about it.
That is painting with too broad of a brush for one or t
Dne 12.7.2016 v 18:49 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
>
> The idea is this: there could be a requirement for all packages to
> provide at least *some* kind of 'how to test' information.
If the package should be tested by human, I'd expect that there will be
some additional value, i.e. the human can s
On 13/07/16 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
That's irrelevant. If a source package only provides a library for
other packages to link against then testing
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:52:45PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> FWIW, as someone who is working on this, I don't think we can
> realistically aim to do distribution-level automated testing with per-
> package granularity. We actually have all the bits in place to do
> something like that if we w
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:52 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Of course, we don't *have* to pick one thing or the other necessarily;
> we can certainly provide all the appropriate hooks for packages to do
> automated update testing, this is something folks are already looking
> at, and there's no
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 11:08 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally
> > unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high
> > here. Even with all
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally
> unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high
> here. Even with all the recent volunteers, we have like a couple dozen
I agree it is a massi
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 10:55 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> An individual wanting to get started in Fedora packaging has to prove
> their competence and understanding of the packaging guidelines by
> commenting on package review requests in addition to submitting their
> own package for review.
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
>
> I think Jon's point was with respect to the scope of testing. With
> glibc (or libstdc++
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:12:25PM -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Instead of concentrating on testers, what about the packagers who don't
> even test their
> applications before throwing them over the wall to bodhi. I've seen
> packages that didn't even
> get past a simple dnf requisite test becaus
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
wrote:
> ... which is not enough. The definition of 'generally functional' is
> vague, as all of us agree and we have seen examples of that being
> misused in the past. Requiring devel to document their packages is
> one step forward and requi
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:23:26PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> nonsense - it's enough to give a sign that a potential fix don't break
> things wich worked before
Your point is valid without saying 'nonsense', so please be a bit more
civil.
I can live with a karma +1 for sanity tests if testing
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
I think Jon's point was with respect to the scope of testing. With
glibc (or libstdc++ that Jon would be concerned with), an ideal set of
sanity tests would cover
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:16:59PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This is setting far too high a bar for a project like Fedora. We take
> the feedback we can get, we are not in a position to demand all update
> testers perform comprehensive testing of all possible facets of an
> update. It is alwa
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:32 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/07/16 16:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Some packages are definitely going to be harder than others...
>
> For example, a libfoo, and its libfoo-devel subpackage.
Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package l
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 16:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:49:14 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >
> > So I've been discussing this with various people in the last few days,
> > and one specific idea has come out of that which I'd like to float.
> >
> > We've been hesitan
On 12/07/16 16:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Some packages are definitely going to be harder than others...
For example, a libfoo, and its libfoo-devel subpackage.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:49:14 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So I've been discussing this with various people in the last few days,
> and one specific idea has come out of that which I'd like to float.
>
> We've been hesitant to suggest this before as we thought packagers
> might not like the ide
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 00:18 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:38:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > This isn't really correct, because there is no simple relationship
> > between 'bugs claimed to be fixed actually are fixed' and 'update
> > should be released'.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:38:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This isn't really correct, because there is no simple relationship
> between 'bugs claimed to be fixed actually are fixed' and 'update
> should be released'. Both of these are possible:
>
> 1) an update which fixes the bugs it clai
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:57 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:49:14AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, the idea would be to have general-purpose instructions for
> > basic functionality testing of each package, not requiring new 'how to
> > test' text
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:49:14AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> To be clear, the idea would be to have general-purpose instructions for
> basic functionality testing of each package, not requiring new 'how to
> test' text to be written for every individual package update,
> specifically tailored
2016-07-12 10:49 GMT-06:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 21:30 +0530, Sayan Chowdhury wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently packaged and pushed an update for
> fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
> > to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I got a +1 to the update. I am
> sure that
> > testing
On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 21:30 +0530, Sayan Chowdhury wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently packaged and pushed an update for fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
> to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I got a +1 to the update. I am sure that
> testing a package surely takes more than 40 secs. This makes me real
32 matches
Mail list logo
