2009-08-24 - 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA meeting Recap

[James Laska]

On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 15:50 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:53:47 -0400, James wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 10:55 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:09:38 -0400, James wrote:
> > > 
> > > > == AutoQA update from wwoods ==
> > > > 
> > > > === Recent changes ===
> > > > Wwoods updated the group on recent AutoQA activities, including:
> > > > * updated conflicts test - it was doing Obsoletes and Conflicts wrong,
> > > > and taking 5 hours to run
> > > > * Improved email headers for autoqa-results ... includes test, arch and
> > > > a summary of errors (e.g. ''repoclosure: 34 packages with unresolved
> > > > deps in rawhide-x86_64'')
> > > 
> > > To get better and correct repoclosure results in those autoqa-results,
> > > some work is needed. "Obsoletes" support (as I pointed out in Will's blog).
> > > i386 => i586 upgrade support for Fedora 11 and newer. A clear definition
> > > of Yum behaviour in multi-arch install "yum update" scenarios.
> > 
> > Thanks for the feedback Michael!  
> > 
> > Have you been in touch with Will directly on these points?
> 
> No. Is all of this talked about only in private mail or behind other
> curtains? IRC/hallways/meetings only? No public mailing-list?
> I used to be a subscriber of fedora-qa-list but it has been shut
> down very early. Recent documents point to fedora-test-list instead.

Hmm, no ... discussion on autoqa has been very public.  Come join an
upcoming QA meeting (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings) if
you'd like to take

Or feel free to review some of the existing documentation (stay tuned,
as it's very much INPROGRESS).

      * Started as a proposal ...
        https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Israwhidebroken.com_Proposal
      * Which lead to the plan ...
        https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/israwhidebroken.com
      * Which spawned development work by Will Woods ...
        https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA

> > I know a lot
> > of work has gone into improving the existing tests ... I'm not sure if
> > it addresses your points though.
> 
> Well, the Rawhide broken dep report has switched to repoclosure, too
> (dunno when exactly, though) and also doesn't handle Obsoletes (which is
> the reason why it missed the synce-serial/synce-hal problem e.g.). So,
> clearly that is one of the roadblocks before the autoqa-results could
> be submitted to the packagers. And if bodhi will ever check for broken
> deps in update transactions, it will also need to get it right.

Once things mature on the test script front ... there are plans to look
into having the results sent directly to maintainers as you suggest.  

There are currently repoclosure and conflicts tests running against
rawhide (and release repo's).  Do these capture the obsoletes issue you
hilight?  What might you implement in order to capture the obsoletes
issue?

Thanks,
James

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090828/fcab2afc/attachment.sig>