On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 12:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> 2) The 'interesting package change' check is at present quite dumb and >> only checks if there's any difference. This means we might actually >> create a nightly event four days after a candidate event because a >> package in the nightly compose is *older* than a package in the >> candidate compose, because we haven't pushed a blocker/FE fix stable >> yet. This seems wrong, and I think I'll try to make the check a bit >> more sophisticated (i.e. check that the changed package is *newer*). >> Doing that entirely correctly is quite difficult, but doing it to a >> 'good enough' level probably isn't. > > Welp, I just fixed this. Good thing I did too, because now I test it, I > realize we would've got a nightly validation event tomorrow, otherwise > :P Now the 'significant package change' check will only pass if all > significant packages are *newer* in the compose that just appeared, not > if they're *different*. Aha, so *if* there's a regression, it should be the one step forward and/or step(s) sideways type, rather than the backwards type? -- Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
