Does abf pull request does not work, like it supposed to? Wysłano z BlackBerry® w Orange
-----Original Message----- From: Nicolò Costanza <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:24:29 To: Tomasz Gajc<[email protected]>; Robert Xu<[email protected]>; Bernhard Rosenkränzer<[email protected]>; Colin Close<[email protected]> Reply-To: Nicolò Costanza <[email protected]> Cc: Cooker OpenMandriva<[email protected]>; OpenMandriva QA<[email protected]> Subject: Re: 2014.0 RC1 Hi, - I may be wrong, but is better to check: it seems to me we are using ever the old rc1 srcs >>> https://abf.io/openmandriva/kernel/blob/master/.abf.yml - sources: "linux-3.13.10-rosa69.tar.xz": 0fea8b28c016615ea6b48021f33e910f8f2baead "linux-3.13.tar.xz": 6b31602a80e817327d77037333408e002ec9884b "patch-3.13.10.xz": c4a835685d6f5b48c1e33bf6cbfcb6e9f4cf448d - - these srcs are identical with the old 3.13.10-0 >>> https://abf.io/nicco/Kernel-3.13.10-0/blob/master/.abf.yml - sources: "linux-3.13.10-rosa69.tar.xz": 0fea8b28c016615ea6b48021f33e910f8f2baead "linux-3.13.tar.xz": 6b31602a80e817327d77037333408e002ec9884b "patch-3.13.10.xz": c4a835685d6f5b48c1e33bf6cbfcb6e9f4cf448d - while with the real, final and stable 3.13.10-1 I can see different numbers >>> https://abf.io/nicco/Kernel-3.13.10-1 - sources: "linux-3.13.10-rosa69.tar.xz": 616d080496155fbe0ffb67ba15e76a17058b9769 "linux-3.13.tar.xz": 6b31602a80e817327d77037333408e002ec9884b "patch-3.13.10.xz": e82cc13bf62065104347670002e7aa0ec00066d0 - Please, check this, and f I am right, imediately stop this wrong build! Perhaps is better, to delete the old srcs files, then import new srcs - - bye, NicCo Il Martedì 15 Aprile 2014 9:03, Tomasz Gajc <[email protected]> ha scritto: I have merged kernel 3.13.10-1 into 2014.0 and started builds: https://abf.io/build_lists/1792539 https://abf.io/build_lists/1792538 I may be, and prolly be afk whole day, but definietly will get back for a TC meeting. 2014-04-15 4:21 GMT+02:00 Robert Xu <[email protected]>: Hi Tomasz, > > >On 14 April 2014 18:54, Tomasz Paweł Gajc <[email protected]> wrote: >> Nicco what is the ETA on new kernel? >> >> Decision needs to be taken what to do, as QA needs few days on testing, and >> finally it would be highly unproffesional if we delay RC1 again. >> >> Current ISO build on Sunday, is missing default urpmi medias because of >> mirror issues. This is not a critical issue, but definietly won't give any >> good feedback on this (see bug #654). >> >> Colin, Robert - what QA voice on below options? >> >> 1. Wait till tommorow or perhaps plus one more day for new kernel and new >> ISO - less time for QA tests > >I personally can deal with this, but that's definitely not >representative of the whole of QA - especially since I only have one >piece of hardware... > >aside: it might be good to get more people into QA to test. > > >> >> 2. Rebuild ISO to solve bug 654 without waiting for new kernel - till >> tommorow - not so much time for QA tests > >is the new kernel building now? > > >> >> 3. Release Sunday's build with no medias (bug 654) as a RC1, gives more time >> for QA testing > >bug 654 might trip people up. I don't know how people will react to it. > > >> >> I'd like to have this discussed on tommorow's TC meeting, and work out a >> final decision. > >Sure. I'll try to attend, but if not, I delegate my voice to Colin. > >-- >cheers, Robert :: protocol.by/rxu >
