On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Dominik Perpeet wrote:
> Dear Fedora Infra,
>
> it's time to close the CI feedback loop!
>
> We have been working on adding CI to Fedora for a little while now but this
> has not really had a visible effect since there are no consequences when
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 01:32:00PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 5 January 2018 at 05:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Good Morning Everyone,
> >
> > There has been work on fedora-hubs for a while now and there is an
> > objective to
> > make it live in staging
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:35:50AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > The tests run by the Atomic CI pipeline are controlled directly by the
> > packager:
> > * Files in dist-git define which tests are run
> > What do you think?
> Has this been to FESCo?
That's probably a good next step.
> > It
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 09:04:50AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:35:50AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > The tests run by the Atomic CI pipeline are controlled directly by the
> > > packager:
> > > * Files in dist-git define which tests are run
> > > What do you
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:16:34PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Well only packages with tests (and part of Fedora Atomic for now)
> will be gated on test results, nothing will change for the others :)
Oh yeah, we discussed this. The opt-in is having tests in the right
place, basically. That
On 01/08/2018 03:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, we discussed this. The opt-in is having tests in the right
> place, basically. That seems reasonable.
>
Exactly. Aside from greenwave options, each packager has complete
control over which tests are enabled via the files in the dist-git
On 8 January 2018 at 11:21, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
>
>> Reading this and knowing the dependencies that node apps tend to have, I
>> wonder
>> if using containers with a very strict dependency list isn't the best
>> middle
>> ground.
>
>
> I was thinking along those