On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 06:42:59PM GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:34:31PM +0900, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 03:02:58PM GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 09:57:32PM +0900, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > > I'd wait for them to be made GA. > > > > > > > > New macOS releases have historically introduced changes that require > > > > libvirt to adapt, sometimes with significant effort, and I wouldn't > > > > want anyone to spend time investigating a build failure that can > > > > potentially affect the Beta version of the OS but not the GA one. > > > > > > Actually I'm wrong. Looking more closely the sequoia image there > > > is an RC, not a Beta. The beta images was referring to 15.1, not > > > 15.0, and they are named separately as sequoia-beta. Using an RC > > > is reliable enough IMHO > > > > I still think there's no reason to rush before the image is GA'd, but > > if the build job succeeds with the RC image and there is no post-GA > > churn involved I won't stand in the way of a libvirt-ci MR taking > > that approach instead of mine[1]. > > By that rationale we also won't test against rawhide, or sid, etc. > IMHO the earlier we test against a platform the better, so if an > image is available we should use it. Rawhide and sid are unstable targets *by design*, which we acknowledge by allowing the respective jobs to fail without considering the entire pipeline as failed. This is more akin to adding e.g. Fedora 41 as a target when GA is not out yet but RC is. Which is not something that, as far as I know, we've ever done. Anyway, I've approved the libvirt-ci MR fixing the image name. Michal, if you squash in the obvious diff and confirm that the pipeline still passes, you can have my Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> and push this. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
