On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34:56PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
>    On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stef Walter <stefw@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>    Shouldn't we send an email to fedora-devel to have more feedback?

We announced the present mailing list on devel-announce which is automatically
CC'd to devel itself. So folks interested on CI know that this is the place to
be.

I think we all recognized the Ansible proposal has some limitations, but looking
at the people who reviewed, the majority has a preference for it.

>      In fact we already see some of these combinations in the examples. For
>      example GLib2 or Cockpit package their own tests in RPMs. These are then
>      executed by the tests laid out as Ansible tests.
>
>    I agree with this except that we cannot discover which packages are
>    involved for a particular test using the ansible approach. The only
>    package that will trigger the test will be the package that is being built
>    while with the other 2 approaches you can have a finer granularity in the
>    other packages needed for a particular test  (with the control approach)
>    or for the all the tests (with the packaging approach).

Having reviewed the Control approach and having asked questions¹ on the wiki
page, I must say that the control approach seems very close to me to the ansible
one, with one big pro: re-using existing tests from other distros and one big
con: entirely new tool in the Fedora ecosystem at large.
The other level of granularity (allowing to specify if it requires root, needs a
dedicated box) don't really matter since afaiu the idea is to invoke the tests
as root anyway (up to the tests to change to another user if they want to) in a
different VM every time.

Another thing I am missing with control is how would we test different artifact?
(an RPM, a OCI container, a qcow image, an iso, an Atomic Host image).