On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 21:16 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > 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? Well that, but most practically speaking, it should prevent creating nightly events while we're validating an RC as it's unlikely the test will ever pass at that particular point in time. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
