On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:37:19 +0100 Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:55:26AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:42:47 +0100 > > Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Isn't AutoQA already running these kind of checks? > > > > For f19 and f20 updates, yes... in an advisory manner. > > > > But not for rawhide since it has no bodhi update to add the comment > > to or know to check. > > It is not the Rawhide update that needs to be checked but the F19/F20 > update, because the problem results from the lack of an Rawhide > update, not because a bad one was issued. There are still cases where thats not true. Take for example: * Maintainer builds for f19/f20/rawhide * Pushes to testing for f19/f20 * Discovers a problem with only the rawhide version. * Since there's not yet been a rawhide compose, untags it. * autoqa already ran on the updates-testing updates, so maintainer forgets about it. * f19/f20 go stable. > However, IMHO it makes more > sense to just hook into AutoQA instead of running the same test > twice. Also it would allow to respond in a timely manner which might > better help to educate maintainers instead of when there are several > days between the bad update creation and the reaction to it. Sure, but I wonder how many maintainers ignore the autoqa note. I know there's at least one common case... if you build for f19/f20 and say the f19 build finishes first and you make that update then, it will add a note from autoqa, but then you know you are going to create the f20 one soon so you ignore it, then you forget to? Anyhow, yeah, I would love taskotron to handle this... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
