On Wednesday 30 May 2007 14:35:16 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > I'm concerned that this will be difficult to code correctly, > specifically the "automagic bug filing". The first failure is easy, but > what if I thought I fixed it, but hadn't. It files a new bug. Rinse, > repeat, bloat bugzilla and/or spend time chasing down dupes. > > I could be wrong about that though. Yes, care would need to be taken to prevent dupes and such. How that is implemented I don't think we have to get into right yet. > The very specific logic path is this: > > 1. A build is submitted. > 2. Primary architectures run. If any primary architecture fails, it > stops. > 3. When all primary architectures pass, then the build is sent to all > secondary architectures. > 4. Each secondary architecture runs to completion. Failures by any > secondary architecture do not affect other secondary architectures. > 5. Secondary architectures which failed make a lot of noise. (This is > where automagic bug filing occurs, emailing architecture teams, etc). Seems right to me. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgptzHMTtAvpb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
