Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-14 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 13:19 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > > For now I'm inclined to similarly try and keep the validation stuff as > > simple as possible, so I won't try to recreate the 'TC' / 'RC' > > distinction at the validation

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-14 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > For now I'm inclined to similarly try and keep the validation stuff as > simple as possible, so I won't try to recreate the 'TC' / 'RC' > distinction at the validation event level, but instead the events will > follow the Pungi compose ver

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-14 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 07:29 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > releng flipped any necessary switches for > > 'release' behaviour. > I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC > distinction. Personally I'm fine with it both ways. It's nice to see > which images are the ones "almos

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-14 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 11:52 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > > > > > releng flipped any necessary switches for > > > 'release' behaviour. > > I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC > > distinction. Personally I'm f

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-14 Thread Peter Robinson
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: >> releng flipped any necessary switches for >> 'release' behaviour. > > I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC distinction. > Personally I'm fine with it both ways. It's nice to see which images are the > ones "almost r

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-14 Thread Kamil Paral
> releng flipped any necessary switches for > 'release' behaviour. I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC distinction. Personally I'm fine with it both ways. It's nice to see which images are the ones "almost ready", but I'm not sure it's worth having more bits for releng

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:57 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > > So if "RC-1.8" passes all tests and is a go, how is this renamed? Or > is it not renamed? > I assume you don't want to do a production compose at this point > because then it's a compose that isn't tested, while ostensibly > identical the

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:52 -0500, John Dulaney wrote: > > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number == > > > > > > > > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha > > > > 1.2' > > > > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2). > > > > > > > > This seems

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:47 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > a. Work with Pungi's currently-expected label format > In this format option, MILESTONE-N.R would be > MILESTONE= alpha, beta, RC > N = arbitrary integer > R = arbitrary integer > > Can N and R be 0? Or must it be 1-9? At least according t

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread Chris Murphy
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> Hi folks! >> >> So we're now frozen for Alpha and we have an anaconda build with >> blocker fixes in updates-testing...I guess this means it's a good time >> to decide what to do abo

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread Chris Murphy
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! > > So we're now frozen for Alpha and we have an anaconda build with > blocker fixes in updates-testing...I guess this means it's a good time > to decide what to do about milestone builds with Pungi 4. :) > > I'm assuming here tha

RE: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread John Dulaney
> Subject: Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals > From: adamw...@fedoraproject.org > To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org; rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:33:41 -0800 > > On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote: >> . >>> &

Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote: > . > > > > > > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number == > > > > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2' > > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2). > > > > This seems like the close

RE: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals

2016-03-09 Thread John Dulaney
. > > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number == > > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2' > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2). > > This seems like the closest possible way to map to our current system. > Again it's a bit weird at Final

Re: pungi (updated ... some success)

2014-11-30 Thread Dennis Gilmore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:08:03 -0500 Gene Czarcinski wrote: > On 11/24/2014 04:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > > I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on > > Live installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time

Re: pungi (also some stupidity: pilot error)

2014-11-27 Thread Gene Czarcinski
On 11/26/2014 03:08 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: On 11/24/2014 04:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time pungi has been successfully run? Yes, I know that TC3 was built b

Re: pungi (updated ... some success)

2014-11-26 Thread Gene Czarcinski
On 11/24/2014 04:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time pungi has been successfully run? Yes, I know that TC3 was built by something but was pungi involved? I have bee

Re: pungi

2014-11-25 Thread poma
On 25.11.2014 20:06, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > On 11/25/2014 07:50 AM, poma wrote: >> On 25.11.2014 01:30, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800 >>> Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, po

Re: pungi

2014-11-25 Thread Gene Czarcinski
On 11/25/2014 07:50 AM, poma wrote: On 25.11.2014 01:30, Dennis Gilmore wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote: On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-11-

Re: pungi

2014-11-25 Thread poma
On 25.11.2014 01:30, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800 > Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote: >>> On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500,

Re: pungi

2014-11-24 Thread Dennis Gilmore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote: > > On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > > >> I know we are into this

Re: pungi

2014-11-24 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote: > On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > >> I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live > >> installs including Live Workstation but when was the last tim

Re: pungi

2014-11-24 Thread poma
On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >> I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live >> installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time pungi has >> been successfully run? Yes, I know tha

Re: pungi

2014-11-24 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live > installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time pungi has > been successfully run? Yes, I know that TC3 was built by something but > was pungi inv

Re: Pungi build on F16

2011-08-31 Thread Jens Falsmar Oechsler
On 29-08-2011 20:20, Jens Falsmar Oechsler wrote: > Hello there > I'm trying out Pungi build on Fedora 16 "branch": > pungi --force --nosource --nodebuginfo --cachedir=/home/joe/Pungibuild/cache > -G > -C -B -I --flavor Fedora --name Fedora --ver 16 -c > /home/joe/fedora-16-pre-install.ks > It gi