Hi Tim,
I'm replying to your questions from December.
yes, the secondary arches follow the same process as primary, they have blocker bugs, etc. Also accepted blockers in secondary should be promoted to Exceptions in primary, it would be nice to have such "button" in the app for secondaries, but we can workaround it. It Also means that the AcceptedBlocker/... states should be prefixed (or suffixed) with the $arch to distinguish between primary/secondary states.
For a start we could have own instances for arm/aarch64, ppc and s390, but having a multi-arch blocker app in the future would be nice I think. And if I see correctly, you will be on the DevConf so we can talk about the requirements and options in person there.
Dan
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:44:24 +0100 Normand <normand at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi there, I used the blockerbugs application at https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug but found that this is restricted to the primary arch releases.
Yeah, it wasn't really designed to handle releases on multiple arches.
Could it be possible to have it improved to support secondary arch releases (ppc64, s390, ...) ?
I don't think that it could happen in time for F21 but I'm definitely game for figuring out what changes need to happen in order for secondary arches to use the blocker tracking app (either a new instance or supporting multiple arches in the app).
Do the secondary arch releases use the same process as primary arch for blockers - tracker bzs for blocker/fe, AcceptedBlocker notation etc.?
Tim
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:27:09 +0100 Dan Horák dan@danny.cz wrote:
Hi Tim,
I'm replying to your questions from December.
yes, the secondary arches follow the same process as primary, they have blocker bugs, etc. Also accepted blockers in secondary should be promoted to Exceptions in primary, it would be nice to have such "button" in the app for secondaries, but we can workaround it. It Also means that the AcceptedBlocker/... states should be prefixed (or suffixed) with the $arch to distinguish between primary/secondary states.
Yeah, I think it's worth talking about what all we'd want to have in a PA/SA unified blocker tracking app (SA blockers showing up as PA FEs, etc.) but that's still going to take some non-trivial re-writing. I'm not against doing it, but it's going to take time.
For a start we could have own instances for arm/aarch64, ppc and s390, but having a multi-arch blocker app in the future would be nice I think. And if I see correctly, you will be on the DevConf so we can talk about the requirements and options in person there.
I think we forgot to get this figured out while at DevConf. I still don't see having multiple arch trackers in the same app happening before F22 but I'm still game for having instances for aarch64, ppc and s390 if that'd be helpful to the secarch folks.
We might want to add some visual distinction between the PA and SA instances so there aren't any complaints about "secondary doesn't block primary!" but that's pretty easy to do and roll up in a new package.
Tim
DanOn Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:44:24 +0100 Normand <normand at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi there, I used the blockerbugs application at https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug but found that this is restricted to the primary arch releases.
Yeah, it wasn't really designed to handle releases on multiple arches.
Could it be possible to have it improved to support secondary arch releases (ppc64, s390, ...) ?
I don't think that it could happen in time for F21 but I'm definitely game for figuring out what changes need to happen in order for secondary arches to use the blocker tracking app (either a new instance or supporting multiple arches in the app).
Do the secondary arch releases use the same process as primary arch for blockers - tracker bzs for blocker/fe, AcceptedBlocker notation etc.?
Tim _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:53:50 +0100 Tim Flink tflink@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:27:09 +0100 Dan Horák dan@danny.cz wrote:
Hi Tim,
I'm replying to your questions from December.
yes, the secondary arches follow the same process as primary, they have blocker bugs, etc. Also accepted blockers in secondary should be promoted to Exceptions in primary, it would be nice to have such "button" in the app for secondaries, but we can workaround it. It Also means that the AcceptedBlocker/... states should be prefixed (or suffixed) with the $arch to distinguish between primary/secondary states.
Yeah, I think it's worth talking about what all we'd want to have in a PA/SA unified blocker tracking app (SA blockers showing up as PA FEs, etc.) but that's still going to take some non-trivial re-writing. I'm not against doing it, but it's going to take time.
not a problem, the unified blocker app is a RFE and might be even considered as part of the koji 2.0 development
For a start we could have own instances for arm/aarch64, ppc and s390, but having a multi-arch blocker app in the future would be nice I think. And if I see correctly, you will be on the DevConf so we can talk about the requirements and options in person there.
I think we forgot to get this figured out while at DevConf. I still
yeah, the breaks between the talks were too short for finding the needed people in the hallways :-)
don't see having multiple arch trackers in the same app happening before F22 but I'm still game for having instances for aarch64, ppc and s390 if that'd be helpful to the secarch folks.
We might want to add some visual distinction between the PA and SA instances so there aren't any complaints about "secondary doesn't block primary!" but that's pretty easy to do and roll up in a new package.
have separate apps set for f22 will work well for us, what should be the next step? shall I open a ticket somewhere?
Dan
Tim
DanOn Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:44:24 +0100 Normand <normand at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi there, I used the blockerbugs application at https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug but found that this is restricted to the primary arch releases.
Yeah, it wasn't really designed to handle releases on multiple arches.
Could it be possible to have it improved to support secondary arch releases (ppc64, s390, ...) ?
I don't think that it could happen in time for F21 but I'm definitely game for figuring out what changes need to happen in order for secondary arches to use the blocker tracking app (either a new instance or supporting multiple arches in the app).
Do the secondary arch releases use the same process as primary arch for blockers - tracker bzs for blocker/fe, AcceptedBlocker notation etc.?
Tim _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dan Horák -
Tim Flink