On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 15:47 Pierre-Yves Chibon <pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:39:34PM +0000, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > One example where running tests against a single-package update would > be > > nice IMO would be for toolchain and base packages, for example, > updates to > > annobin or binutils, where the answer to "Does this update break > > compilation with GCC?" (which could be added as a test case) would be > > vital in determining if the package should be pushed to rawhide or > not. > > Hope that makes it more clear what I meant by "it also would be nice > for > > single-package updates". > > I think I follow you there, what I don't follow is the difference between > this > and the build not landing in rawhide because it failed its tests. > > Or are you referring to: pre-commit testing, in other words pull-request > testing? > No, that's not what I meant (although testing PRs would be nice for the future, too). I just wanted to express that gating rawhide updates depending on test results is meaningful not only for the proposed merging of side-tags, but also for single important packages. Knowing if pushing annobin or binutils break compiling GCC before pushing > the > commit into the git repo? > So, opening a PR against annobin/binutils, running the tests and if they > pass > then push to the git repo and build in rawhide? > > If that's what you have in mind, this is definitively in the roadmap (PR > testing) but will be tracked separately from gating rawhide packages since > PR > testing will concern all branches not just rawhide. > > > Pierre > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
