Fedora-Rawhide-20211217.n.1 compose check report

2021-12-18 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 20 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 67/159 (aarch64), 95/228 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed

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

2021-12-18 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 15:16 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:49:53AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > This makes sense to me. It might also make sense for big changes to also > > > include proposed updates to the validation criteria, just as modern > > > software > > >

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20211217.n.1 changes

2021-12-18 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211216.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211217.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 7 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 195 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 8.83 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

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

2021-12-18 Thread Matthew Miller
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:49:53AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > This makes sense to me. It might also make sense for big changes to also > > include proposed updates to the validation criteria, just as modern software > > development expects new features to come with tests for those features.

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

2021-12-18 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 13:23 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 09:09:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > However, I think there'd be a solid case for FESCo to take anything > > like this as a blocker, and procedurally that makes more sense too - > > Changes are under FESCo's

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

2021-12-18 Thread Matthew Miller
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 09:09:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > However, I think there'd be a solid case for FESCo to take anything > like this as a blocker, and procedurally that makes more sense too - > Changes are under FESCo's remit. So if a case like this is caught > before release, I'd say

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

2021-12-18 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 19:29 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > Fedora 33 brough systemd-resolved by default; but in Fedora 35 this > somehow got reverted. > > I've proposed it as a blocker, but the main point of the thread is > really to discuss the general case of whether such a thing is a > blocker? I

Fedora-Cloud-34-20211218.0 compose check report

2021-12-18 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-34-20211217.0): ID: 1089087 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Fedora-Cloud-35-20211218.0 compose check report

2021-12-18 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-35-20211216.0): ID: 1089071 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op