On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Gotcha, that's even better. --- xtofmustapha -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
