Fedora-Rawhide-20201112.n.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Xfce raw-xz armhfp Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 7/177 (x86_64), 14/115 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-2020.n.0): ID: 721492 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721492 ID: 721546 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso support_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721546 ID: 721557 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721557 ID: 721569 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfsiso_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721569 ID: 721716 Test: aarch64 universal install_with_swap@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721716 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-2020.n.0): ID: 721586 Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz base_services_start@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721586 ID: 721632 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721632 ID: 721687 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721687 ID: 721699 Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721699 ID: 721712 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721712 ID: 721736 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_printing URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721736 ID: 721737 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721737 ID: 721739 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721739 ID: 721744 Test: x86_64 universal support_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721744 ID: 721747 Test: x86_64 universal install_pxeboot@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721747 ID: 721750 Test: aarch64 universal support_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721750 ID: 721752 Test: aarch64 universal install_pxeboot@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721752 ID: 721754 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721754 ID: 721755 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721755 ID: 721756 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721756 ID: 721757 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721757 Soft failed openQA tests: 6/177 (x86_64), 1/115 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-2020.n.0): ID: 721438 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721438 ID: 721470 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721470 ID: 721483 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_printing URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721483 ID: 721484 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721484 ID: 721534 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721534 ID: 721602 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721602 ID: 721611 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721611 Passed openQA tests: 164/177 (x86_64), 100/115 (aarch64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-2020.n.0): ID: 721624 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721624 ID: 721751 Test: aarch64 universal install_iscsi@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721751 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi: 1 services(s) added since previous compose: flatpak-system-helper.service System load changed from 1.08 to 0.50 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/720479#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721480#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload: 1 services(s) added since previous compose: fwupd.service Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/720480#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721481#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi: System load changed from 0.88 to 0.74 Previous test data: https://op
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 03:06:09PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > Hello, > some of you used the Blockerbugs discussion tickets during the F33 cycle. > I'd love to have your feedback on that functionality. > > As a refresher, those discussion tickets are available from the Blockerbugs > website [1] after clicking on Vote/Discuss links, which forward you to a > ticket available in the blocker-review project [2] on Pagure. In such a > ticket, anyone can vote on blocker bug/freeze exception status of that > particular bug (an example [3]). > > These discussion tickets were created to shorten our regular IRC blocker > meetings and allow people to submit their opinions and votes outside of the > meeting hours. > > *I'd like to know how well it worked, in your opinion.* I think it worked pretty well... > I'd like to learn whether these discussion tickets were a worthwhile > addition to the blockerbugs process, and in case they were, then identify > pain points, annoyances and bugs so that we can improve them. > > So, please reply with anything that's on your heart regarding this topic. > Here are a few suggestions of topics to think over: > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs discussion tickets? yep. I think so. > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs IRC meetings? Yep. Again it seems like some bugs/proposals need more interaactive discussion (not that I was any good at attending any of those this last cycle or two) > * What is your general opinion on discussion tickets, do you like > it/dislike it/don't care? I like them. > * Did you find any annoyances or have any pet peeves with discussion > tickets? Sometimes the ticket titles were not very informative, but thats more the fault of the bug really. > * What would you like to see improved in those discussion tickets or in > their integration with Blockerbugs and Bugzilla websites? Could there be some way to list what critera is being used in the initial ticket? Is there any plans for a cleanup cycle? ie, now that f33 is out, close out all the f33 tickets? > Thanks a lot for your thoughts. 🍪 > > PS: You can also report bugs or request improvements anytime in the future > at [4]. > > Kamil Thanks for putting all this together! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 7:07 AM Kamil Paral wrote: > > So, please reply with anything that's on your heart regarding this topic. > Here are a few suggestions of topics to think over: > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs discussion tickets? > Yes. * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs IRC meetings? > There's probably some subset of bugs that benefit from live discussion. > * What is your general opinion on discussion tickets, do you like > it/dislike it/don't care? > I like it. > * Did you find any annoyances or have any pet peeves with discussion > tickets? > I often had to click the 'how to vote' link in a separate tab to copy/paste the proper tag. It'd be nice if the list of possible voting tags is simply incorporated into the initial issue text. > * What would you like to see improved in those discussion tickets or in > their integration with Blockerbugs and Bugzilla websites? > +1 to what Adam already mentioned. -- Chris Murphy ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Thu, 2020-11-12 at 15:06 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > Hello, > some of you used the Blockerbugs discussion tickets during the F33 cycle. > I'd love to have your feedback on that functionality. > > As a refresher, those discussion tickets are available from the Blockerbugs > website [1] after clicking on Vote/Discuss links, which forward you to a > ticket available in the blocker-review project [2] on Pagure. In such a > ticket, anyone can vote on blocker bug/freeze exception status of that > particular bug (an example [3]). > > These discussion tickets were created to shorten our regular IRC blocker > meetings and allow people to submit their opinions and votes outside of the > meeting hours. > > *I'd like to know how well it worked, in your opinion.* > > I'd like to learn whether these discussion tickets were a worthwhile > addition to the blockerbugs process, and in case they were, then identify > pain points, annoyances and bugs so that we can improve them. > > So, please reply with anything that's on your heart regarding this topic. > Here are a few suggestions of topics to think over: > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs discussion tickets? > * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs IRC meetings? > * What is your general opinion on discussion tickets, do you like > it/dislike it/don't care? > * Did you find any annoyances or have any pet peeves with discussion > tickets? > * What would you like to see improved in those discussion tickets or in > their integration with Blockerbugs and Bugzilla websites? > > Thanks a lot for your thoughts. 🍪 I think it worked great. It let us process a lot of straightforward decisions without the delay of waiting till the next meeting or the awkwardness of doing it in Bugzilla, and it made the meetings way shorter. By all means let's keep it. My principal issues were really just "quality of life" things: * No synchronization of "decision made" between ticket and Bugzilla, when a decision is made someone has to update both separately (using different Magic Texts, which it's easy to mess up). It would be really nice if we could just mark the decision in Bugzilla and have that automatically propagate to the ticket system. * Using Magic Text for voting and admin is awkward and error-prone. Better UI for this would be really helpful. In addition, the state isn't automatically updated when you vote or mark a decision, so I always find myself manually refreshing the page after doing it just to make sure I did it right and the change took effect. * It'd be really nice if the web UI showed the current vote counts from the ticket. I frequently find myself opening every proposal ticket in a tab and going through them all just to see if any have enough votes for a decision yet; it'd be much more efficient if I could just see the totals at a glance on the blockerbugs web UI overview. That's all the ones I remember for now. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 3:06 PM Kamil Paral wrote: > *I'd like to know how well it worked, in your opinion.* > I have mostly positive experience with the discussion tickets. It definitely increased my participation during this cycle. Previously, I mostly dealt with blockerbugs once per week on the IRC meeting, where I needed to quickly skim each bugreport in order to form an opinion (of course I could have prepared in advance, but... mostly I wasn't that diligent in this area). With these tickets, I subscribed to the blocker-review project and therefore was immediately notified after each new blocker/FE proposal. So I spent some time on those bugs throughout the whole week, had more time to read them, often helped debug them or add some information and finally cast a vote whenever I felt ready. I spent more time on blockerbugs overall, but I feel it contributed to the release quality and smoother blocker process. Those tickets shortened the regular IRC meeting considerably. For simple issues, it feels much better to cast the votes async instead of waiting for everyone at the meeting to speak up. Also I can vote whenever I want, instead of being present at the meeting at a fixed time. For contentious issues, the meetings still might have their use. It's easier to discuss our different views in real-time instead of waiting hours or days for a response in a ticket, and remember the context the whole time. Of course the downside is that not everyone can be present. So keeping both channels open might be beneficial for difficult discussions. One thing I noticed is that sometimes people couldn't remember to keep the discussion split between technical discussion and debugging (Bugzilla) and voting (Pagure tickets). Occasionally people added debugging info into the Pagure tickets. That means people only watching Bugzilla (e.g. maintainers and developers) didn't see that info. I tried to remind people every time I saw this, and hopefully this is only about habit. I admit that it's sometimes not trivial to keep those two discussion topics separated, or not forget about it. With just IRC discussions, we never really had this problem. In the future, I'd like to improve some automation regarding discussion tickets maintenance. First, a ticket creation should automatically send a comment to Bugzilla, so that the developer/package maintainer and anyone watching knows about the discussion and can participate (we're fairly bad about it at the moment). A it would also be nice to reduce the amount of manual secretarialization needed after a vote is accepted - Bugzilla could be ideally updated automatically with the correct flags. Kamil ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬
Hello, some of you used the Blockerbugs discussion tickets during the F33 cycle. I'd love to have your feedback on that functionality. As a refresher, those discussion tickets are available from the Blockerbugs website [1] after clicking on Vote/Discuss links, which forward you to a ticket available in the blocker-review project [2] on Pagure. In such a ticket, anyone can vote on blocker bug/freeze exception status of that particular bug (an example [3]). These discussion tickets were created to shorten our regular IRC blocker meetings and allow people to submit their opinions and votes outside of the meeting hours. *I'd like to know how well it worked, in your opinion.* I'd like to learn whether these discussion tickets were a worthwhile addition to the blockerbugs process, and in case they were, then identify pain points, annoyances and bugs so that we can improve them. So, please reply with anything that's on your heart regarding this topic. Here are a few suggestions of topics to think over: * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs discussion tickets? * Does it make sense to keep blockerbugs IRC meetings? * What is your general opinion on discussion tickets, do you like it/dislike it/don't care? * Did you find any annoyances or have any pet peeves with discussion tickets? * What would you like to see improved in those discussion tickets or in their integration with Blockerbugs and Bugzilla websites? Thanks a lot for your thoughts. 🍪 PS: You can also report bugs or request improvements anytime in the future at [4]. Kamil [1] https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/34/beta/buglist [2] https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review [3] https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/171 [4] https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blockerbugs/issues ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora-Cloud-31-20201112.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (x86_64), 7/7 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora-Cloud-32-20201112.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-2020.0): ID: 721144 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721144 ID: 721151 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/721151 Passed openQA tests: 6/7 (x86_64), 6/7 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
