Re: RFC: Storing Automated Tasks/Tests In Dist-Git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:57:14 -0600
Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification - the emphasis was on coming support for
> PRs. I've reworded that part of the proposal to make it more clear
> that dist-git isn't "moving to pagure".

Thanks. 
> 
> > Another alternate here is that we could make taskotron a 'namespace'
> > like currently rpms/ and docker/ are. Then we would have
> > perhaps: /taskotron/rpms/foobar/ as the top level and all the rest
> > is the same. This would get us a seperate pkgdb entry for the
> > taskotron part of things (ie, it could have different maintainers,
> > people allowed to commit, etc). That would add to complexity
> > however.   
> 
> That is an alternative that we had been looking at before we learned
> that dist-git would be getting pull requests. The namespace we were
> talking about was 'checks/rpms/foobar' which would also open the door
> for things like 'checks/docker/foobar' or any other type of
> deliverable which uses dist-git.
> 
> Our thought is that keeping all the checks in the same repo that spec
> files live in is going to be easier to use than having to worry about
> keeping 2 repos in sync with eachother.

Fair enough. I just thought it would be worth mentioning. 

> That being said, we're fine with either storage paradigm and it
> doesn't matter much if we look for tasks in a directory inside
> dist-git branches or a separate repo which only holds tasks as long
> as there is a single convention that is easy for most contributors
> and doesn't involve something that's unmanageable for the Taskotron
> devs/admins.

Yeah, I don't have much of a horse in this race either. 
I guess it depends on how much maintainers will find tests being
added/edited/etc as noise or not. 
 
> > Is there any provision for tests that should be run on _all_
> > packages? or we would need to link the test into all repos, etc?
> > I have in mind a test that would get the checksum from the sources
> > file and see if it could compare it to upstream.   
> 
> At this point, that's pretty much "come talk to us and we'll get
> something figured out". I suspect that things which run on all
> builds/uploads are going to be the minority of tasks that people want
> to run and for now, it's treated as a special case.

ok. Thats fair.

> So, if you have ideas for checks that would run on all packages or on
> groups of packages, please come find us. If I'm wrong and there are a
> lot of more general checks that people want to run, we can speed up
> plans to make them less of a special case.
> 
> > Finally, are the lifecycle points triggered via fedmsg? If so, it
> > would be nice to have a UPLOAD lifecycle where someone has uploaded
> > a source to lookaside cache. (The above test would probibly be
> > better at upload time than sources git commit time, but either
> > could work).   
> 
> Everything that runs in Taskotron is triggered via fedmsg so we can
> add pretty much anything which emits a fedmsg.

Excellent. 

...snip...

kevin


Attachment: pgpC8kUZOdIhi.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux