Good Morning Everyone,
The Atomic CI pipeline running at: https://jenkins-continuous-infra.apps.ci.centos.org/job/continuous-infra-ci-... is running on Fedora 27 but greenwave hasn't been instructed to gate based on its results. So I would like to make the following change to greenwave's policy and run the greenwave playbook that should rebuild the containers with the new policy.
Change: --- a/roles/openshift-apps/greenwave/templates/configmap.yml +++ b/roles/openshift-apps/greenwave/templates/configmap.yml @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ data: id: "atomic_ci_pipeline_results" product_versions: - fedora-26 + - fedora-27 decision_context: bodhi_update_push_testing blacklist: [] relevance_key: original_spec_nvr
Thoughts?
Thanks, Pierre
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:29:46AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Good Morning Everyone,
The Atomic CI pipeline running at: https://jenkins-continuous-infra.apps.ci.centos.org/job/continuous-infra-ci-... is running on Fedora 27 but greenwave hasn't been instructed to gate based on its results. So I would like to make the following change to greenwave's policy and run the greenwave playbook that should rebuild the containers with the new policy.
Change: --- a/roles/openshift-apps/greenwave/templates/configmap.yml +++ b/roles/openshift-apps/greenwave/templates/configmap.yml @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ data: id: "atomic_ci_pipeline_results" product_versions: - fedora-26
- fedora-27
Upon further checking Ralph figured out that we may also want/need to gate pushing to stable based on the Atomic CI results.
The patch is at: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6806
Should we directly apply the larger patch?
Pierre
Looks reasonably self-contained to me and shouldn't break release stuff, so that's fine, +1 on the change.
I just think it would be a good idea to inform the maintainers of these packages of this?
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Ralph Bean