On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 02:14:43 -0500
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, we'll want to do all sorts of tests that aren't obviously
tied to any specific package. The only kinds of tests it would make
sense to have in
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:30:07PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The RPM spec file is a clearly defined thing that achieves a clearly
defined set of functions. Overloading it with something that's really
Well, it's not so clear as all that, but, sure. And I wasn't really
suggesting that RPM
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:47 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:30:07PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The RPM spec file is a clearly defined thing that achieves a clearly
defined set of functions. Overloading it with something that's really
Well, it's not so clear as
Hi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, we'll want to do all sorts of tests that aren't obviously tied to
any specific package. The only kinds of tests it would make sense to
have in packages would be tests that are very tightly associated with
that package, but then
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 07:52:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
No. There's a bad one, which is AutoQA. The problem with it is it's more
or less considered obsolete now as far as new development goes; the devs
are working on Taskotron to replace it, but I don't believe it's ready
for
On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:42:16 +
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 07:52:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
No. There's a bad one, which is AutoQA. The problem with it is it's
more or less considered obsolete now as far as new development
goes; the devs
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:36:09AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
One of the primary reasons for replacing AutoQA with taskotron is to
make it easier for folks to contribute checks. AutoQA's implementation
just isn't capable of doing that in a reasonable fashion. We haven't
gotten into the specifics
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:00:23AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
Thanks, Richard, for your feedback. That's exactly one of the
problems in AutoQA that we want to improve in Taskotron. The package
maintainers or test maintainers should have a direct and simple
control over their tests.
Excellent
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:36:09AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
Kamil already covered this a bit but I wanted to add a few more details.
One of the primary reasons for replacing AutoQA with taskotron is to
make it easier for folks to contribute checks. AutoQA's implementation
just isn't capable
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:53:14 -0500
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:36:09AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
One of the primary reasons for replacing AutoQA with taskotron is to
make it easier for folks to contribute checks. AutoQA's
implementation just isn't
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:04:39AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
I haven't given a whole lot of thought to how exactly we'll do package
specific checks. Keeping the checks in the package's git repo is the
first thing that comes to mind but I'm sure there other possible
solutions. Either way, it
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:04:39AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
What about including them in the RPMs themselves, in a new section
similar to the existing %check -- or just in a standard file location
(so no changes to RPM itself are needed immediately)?
I'm not sure that I see how including
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 13:47 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 11:04:39AM -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
What about including them in the RPMs themselves, in a new section
similar to the existing %check -- or just in a standard file location
(so no changes to RPM itself are
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 07:52:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
No. There's a bad one, which is AutoQA. The problem with it is it's more
or less considered obsolete now as far as new development goes; the devs
are working on Taskotron to replace it, but I don't believe it's ready
for test
14 matches
Mail list logo
