Re: [PATCH] upgradepath doesn't support -testing repos yet, disable scheduling

[Kamil Paral]

----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  Hey gang,
>  
>  I'm failing when looking into the list archives to review our
>  previous
>  conclusions on this topic.  I know we talked about this before, but I
>  can't find the threads. 
Weird, I think we did discuss it, I even think of some ascii art showing
possible problems. But I found just this, nothing more:
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-August/000982.html

>  
>  The more I think about the upgradepath test, the more I come up with
>  scenarios where I (as a maintainer) would want to know the
>  upgradepath
>  result for my updates in 'updates-testing'.  I recognize there might
>  be
>  some weird policy issues here, perhaps we need to get clarification
>  on
>  this from FESCO?   
I have search through whole fedoraproject wiki and a lot of pages talk
about upgrade path, but none defines it exactly. Therefore we could ask
FESCo about exact definition, yes, that's probably a good idea (to have
some solid background for what we do).

The main question is whether we want to have upgrade path constraint
fulfilled when dealing with updates-testing repositories and what exactly
it means in this case. Does it mean upgrading from F12-updates-testing to
F13-updates? Or does it mean upgrading from F12-updates-testing to 
F13-updates-testing? We don't know, and that's the problem.

I'll write another email talking about the problems that may arise.


>  
>  I know there is also the potential that an update in
>  'updates-testing'
>  fails during functional validation, and never lands in 'stable'. 
>  Isn't
>  this scenario covered by also scheduling upgradepath for bodhi
>  'updates'
>  requests?
>  
>  Sorry for coming back to this topic, I think I need some re-educating
>  on
>  what 'upgradepath' means. 
First of all, I'd like to have my patch accepted, if possible. That should
put into a consistent state - 'updates' checked correctly,
'updates-testing'
not checked at all. Right now we are in an inconsistent state.

Also I have some more patches coming for upgradepath test, so pushing into
master would save me some trouble.

When we are in a consistent state, we can unleash the debate about the 
updates-testing problem :) In a following email I'll sum up the main problems
that arise and what we can do about it.

Since Will is now on PTO, do you think I can push this into master, James?

[PATCH] upgradepath doesn't support -testing repos yet, disable scheduling

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 08:11 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>  ----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > 
>  > Hey gang,
>  > 
>  > I'm failing when looking into the list archives to review our
>  > previous
>  > conclusions on this topic.  I know we talked about this before, but I
>  > can't find the threads.
>  
>  Weird, I think we did discuss it, I even think of some ascii art showing
>  possible problems. But I found just this, nothing more:
>  https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-August/000982.html
>  
>  > 
>  > The more I think about the upgradepath test, the more I come up with
>  > scenarios where I (as a maintainer) would want to know the
>  > upgradepath
>  > result for my updates in 'updates-testing'.  I recognize there might
>  > be
>  > some weird policy issues here, perhaps we need to get clarification
>  > on
>  > this from FESCO?  
>  
>  I have search through whole fedoraproject wiki and a lot of pages talk
>  about upgrade path, but none defines it exactly. Therefore we could ask
>  FESCo about exact definition, yes, that's probably a good idea (to have
>  some solid background for what we do).
>  
>  The main question is whether we want to have upgrade path constraint
>  fulfilled when dealing with updates-testing repositories and what exactly
>  it means in this case. Does it mean upgrading from F12-updates-testing to
>  F13-updates? Or does it mean upgrading from F12-updates-testing to 
>  F13-updates-testing? We don't know, and that's the problem. 
That's exactly where my confusion was coming from.  We can certainly
choose one path to test, but whether that is the correct specification,
I don't know.

>  I'll write another email talking about the problems that may
> arise. 

>  > I know there is also the potential that an update in
>  > 'updates-testing'
>  > fails during functional validation, and never lands in 'stable'. 
>  > Isn't
>  > this scenario covered by also scheduling upgradepath for bodhi
>  > 'updates'
>  > requests?
>  > 
>  > Sorry for coming back to this topic, I think I need some re-educating
>  > on
>  > what 'upgradepath' means.
>  
>  First of all, I'd like to have my patch accepted, if possible. That should
>  put into a consistent state - 'updates' checked correctly,
> 'updates-testing'
>  not checked at all. Right now we are in an inconsistent state. 
You are right, I corrected the original issue you noted by introducing
an odd behavior.  It is running for 'updates-testing', but only checking
'stable' and 'updates' repositories for upgradepath.  It seemed right at
the time, but now I realize there isn't a clear policy/expectation on
how 'updates-testing' should[n't] be included during upgradepath
calculations.

>  Also I have some more patches coming for upgradepath test, so pushing
> into
>  master would save me some trouble.
>  
>  When we are in a consistent state, we can unleash the debate about the 
>  updates-testing problem :) In a following email I'll sum up the main problems
>  that arise and what we can do about it. 
That'd be excellent, thanks Kamil for moving this forward.

>  Since Will is now on PTO, do you think I can push this into master,
> James? 
I don't see the harm in more correctly fixing the original traceback
(https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/226).  From discussions (mail
and 1x1) I've had with everyone, it seems we all agree we need to
include 'updates-testing' in the upgradepath test, but we don't have
consensus on what the policy is.  Given that, please do push your
changes into master.  We'll address 'updates-testing' in your follow-on
mail.

Thanks for the clarification!
James

[PATCH] upgradepath doesn't support -testing repos yet, disable scheduling

[Kamil Paral]

----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Since Will is now on PTO, do you think I can push this into
> master,
>  James?
>  
>  I don't see the harm in more correctly fixing the original traceback
>  (https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/226).  From discussions (mail
>  and 1x1) I've had with everyone, it seems we all agree we need to
>  include 'updates-testing' in the upgradepath test, but we don't have
>  consensus on what the policy is.  Given that, please do push your
>  changes into master.  We'll address 'updates-testing' in your
>  follow-on
>  mail.
>  
>  Thanks for the clarification!
>  James 
Thanks, pushed.