[Pulp-dev] 2.9.3 beta

[Preethi Thomas]

The 12 failures for the upgrade job turns out to be environment related for
el6. El7 upgrade tests are green

Jeremy took a look at the issues that are fixed in 2.9.3 and mentioned that
these scenarios are not covered by the automation. So running the
automation on this would only test any regressions.

I also see the 2 bugs on 2.9.2 that were triaged as urgent

https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2234
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2236

Are these going to be included in 2.9.3?

 I think it would be beneficial if we can test the issues included in 2.9
before releasing.  With 2.10 release early next week, we should be able to
finish testing and release 2.9.3 later next week.

Thanks
Preethi




On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com> wrote:

> Based on the meeting yesterday, I think we're just waiting on feedback
> about what caused the 12 failures.
>
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Preethi Thomas <pthomas at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> They are running, but sometimes we do have to manually trigger them.
>>
>> Here is the latest run ( on September 5)
>> https://pulp-jenkins.rhev-ci-vms.eng.rdu2.redhat.com/view/Pu
>> lp%20Upgrading/job/pulp-upgrade-2.8-stable-2.9-beta-rhel6/
>> lastCompletedBuild/testReport/
>>
>> The failures (12) haven't been looked at yet.
>>
>> Hope this explains some of the questions.
>>
>> Preethi
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jen Albertson <jalberts at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, my reply overlapped yours. So, disregard my email since you have
>>> now answered my questions.
>>>
>>> I thought that the upgrade jobs are part of the automation - have they
>>> not been run?
>>>
>>> ~Jen
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From: *"Preethi Thomas" <pthomas at redhat.com>
>>> *To: *"Jen Albertson" <jalberts at redhat.com>
>>> *Cc: *"Michael Hrivnak" <mhrivnak at redhat.com>, "Sean Myers" <
>>> sean.myers at redhat.com>, "Og Maciel" <omaciel at redhat.com>
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:33:04 AM
>>>
>>> *Subject: *Re: 2.9.3 beta
>>>
>>> Validated by QE Engineer part is what I was referring to.
>>>
>>> We haven't put in much time to investigate if all the bugs that are
>>> fixed in 2.9.3 is in some way covered in automation.
>>>
>>> Also, the upgrade jobs have not been run or verified.
>>>
>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Preethi
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Jen Albertson <jalberts at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the document: http://pulp.etherpad.corp.redhat.com/260
>>>>
>>>> And you are correct, the z release was based on automation not bugs.
>>>> The other piece was just that Pulp Smash tests have passed and validated by
>>>> a QE engineer.
>>>>
>>>> ~Jen
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From: *"Michael Hrivnak" <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
>>>> *To: *"Jen Albertson" <jalberts at redhat.com>
>>>> *Cc: *"Preethi Thomas" <pthomas at redhat.com>, "Sean Myers" <
>>>> sean.myers at redhat.com>, "Og Maciel" <omaciel at redhat.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:56:50 AM
>>>> *Subject: *Re: 2.9.3 beta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we have any particular rush for 2.9.3. But before we
>>>> decide to extend the 2.9.3 release, I'd like to just check in on how that
>>>> fits with what we previously decided would be the release criteria.
>>>>
>>>> Generally, I thought we'd decided that the release criteria for a Z
>>>> release was almost entirely based on automation, and specifically that we
>>>> would not block a Z release on verifying bugs. I don't recall where that
>>>> was documented, but I think it's in an etherpad somewhere. We had a meeting
>>>> where we agreed on release criteria for Y and Z releases, and we captured
>>>> those conclusions in notes. I scanned the etherpad we're using for the
>>>> regular meetings, and I didn't see it there.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone recall where that's documented?
>>>>
>>>> My preference is to just follow the process as we previously defined
>>>> it. If we need to make an exception, I'm always open to that, but it's
>>>> helpful to frame it in the context of the normal process.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jen Albertson <jalberts at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll defer to Michael and Sean, but I am good with delaying 2.9.3 a
>>>>> week so that we can finalize the work on 2.10.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Jen
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From: *"Preethi Thomas" <pthomas at redhat.com>
>>>>> *To: *"Sean Myers" <sean.myers at redhat.com>, "Michael Hrivnak" <
>>>>> mhrivnak at redhat.com>, "Jen Albertson" <jalberts at redhat.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *"Og Maciel" <omaciel at redhat.com>
>>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 7, 2016 2:58:50 PM
>>>>> *Subject: *2.9.3 beta
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just realized that 2.9.3 has been in beta for a week. But with 2.10
>>>>> beta/RC and 2.9.3 beta getting released on the same date, I have not picked
>>>>> up 2.9.3 for testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we could delay the 2.9.3 a week, (a week from next week- as 2.10
>>>>> would hopefully be released next week)  that would give us enough time to
>>>>> verify the bugs and get the upgrade testing done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Preethi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20160909/6eb4bbb7/attachment.htm>