On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:51:26PM +0000, Fabio Valentini wrote: > 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: > >Â Â One example where running tests against a single-package update > would be > >Â Â nice IMO would be for toolchain and base packages, for example, > updates to > >Â Â annobin or binutils, where the answer to "Does this update break > >Â Â compilation with GCC?" (which could be added as a test case) > would be > >Â Â vital in determining if the package should be pushed to rawhide > or not. > >Â Â Hope that makes it more clear what I meant by "it also would be > nice for > >Â Â 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.
Ok then I think we're just agreeing :) It is what these diagrams are trying represent: the process of gating single package: https://pingou.fedorapeople.org/gating_rawhide/GatingRawhide.png https://pingou.fedorapeople.org/gating_rawhide/GatingRawhide_bodhi.png Pierre _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
