On 26 August 2016 at 16:45, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 14:27 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> > >> > There are a lot of images being produced and I have no idea if they're >> > really needed. That a release blocking image (cloud base qcow2) nearly >> > caused F25 alpha to slip because it was busted at least suggests it >> > probably shouldn't be release blocking anymore. FWIW, cloud base qcow2 >> > now gets grub2 in lieu of extlinux as the work around for the >> > breakage. >> >> Puts us back at 231M for the qcow2, instead of 195M for F24. Ah well; >> at least it boots. >> >> Rather than having the Cloud Base Image — or its Server-based successor >> — be blocking, I'd like to it as see an updated, automatically-tested >> two-week image. Ideally, we'd have a solid one on release day, but if >> we don't for some reason, it'd be less of a crisis. >> >> We also, obviously, have a process breakdown with what to do with >> failure reports from autocloud. > > Right. We *have* the automated testing, but automated testing is no use > if no-one looks at the results and fixes the bugs. This is not really a > QA responsibility (even though I seem to be the one who always winds up > doing it for Server and Workstation; I do not have time to do it for > Cloud). Of course, in an 'ideal' world we'd have a more CI-ish setup > where changes that cause the tests to start failing get rejected, and > people are working on that - but the fact that we don't have it already > is not an excuse to ignore the test systems we already have in place. > > I will note that I filed > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331864 - an unavoidable > crash when installing from the Atomic installer image - in *April*, and > no-one appears to care that the Atomic installer image has been broken > since then. This bug still shows up like clockwork in every F25 and > Rawhide compose tested in openQA. It makes me wonder why I put in the > effort to implement the openQA testing, if no-one cares when it finds a > bug. I feel your pain on this but think it is also a good thing. Maybe no-one cares <period> about this target but we didn't have data on it until you put in a tool which could measure how much people actually care. Look at these tools as part of the cost people need to pay for having various targets of the distribution. People say they want stuff as long as it is free to them even if they never use it.. but when a cost is actually associated with the thing they are a lot pickier about what they want to spend on. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
