Well, what about using check_patch.sh on all platforms unless there is a more specific file? That is future proof unless a bigger incompatibility appears.
The same goes for package files with one possible extension. Allow includes of other files. Martin On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Barak Korren <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 January 2017 at 14:33, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:31:50AM +0200, Barak Korren wrote: >>> I suggest we make the platform suffix explicitly required (with a >>> compatibility fall-back, see below), so that to have 'check_patch' run >>> on Fedora 25 for x86_64, one will have to have a >>> 'check_patch.sh.fc25.x86_64' script (or symlink) in the automation >>> directory. >> >> I'd suggest a directory per platform. That way you can simply symlink >> f25 to f24 and copy all the checks. > > I'm guessing this suggestion is in order to avoid having too many > symlinks. It seems to me this may not be needed if we keep the > existing logic for finding *.packages and *.repos files. Consider the > following automation dir content: > > check_patch.sh > check_patch.packages > check_patch.sh.fc24 -> check_patch.sh > check_patch.sh.fc25 -> check_patch.sh > > So same checks running on el7, fc25, fc25, with the same packages and > with no much duplication and not too many symlinks. Am I missing > something? > > -- > Barak Korren > [email protected] > RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team > https://ifireball.wordpress.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
