Hi everyone, I'll work on making sure this is conveniently automated for the case of RTM-only projects. I might need to consult some things with Colin, as there are some special cases here and there.
I have a few ideas on how to proceed though. W dniu 21.08.2014 o 23:22, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo pisze: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Pat McGowan <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> >>> >>> The idea is to land in utopic first and then copy the source+binaries to >>> an rtm silo for retesting; and if the changes actually require a rebuild due >>> to the nature of the divergent paths of the archives, push the source >>> package with a backport look a like version tag (e.g.; >>> $upstream-$packaging~rtm1). >> >> Isn't this an option we could automate, add a flag to the spreadsheet to do >> the rtm silo after the utopic silo is published? I expect this is the 90% >> use case so lets optimize for it. > > There's really no reason why this can't be automated. > > If an extra QA is needed, then we could just automate everything but > the QA sign-off. The manual process to request another landing, > waiting to get a silo, building and then waiting QA to sign off is > just unreal. > > Cheers, > -- Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak [email protected] www.canonical.com -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
