patrikp opened a new pull-request against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are following: `` Fix/improve the release-candidate script. ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
humaton commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` Can you create a corresponding PR to releng SOP docs? The new expected parameter with fedora version should be reflected in all compose SOP's using this script ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
kevin commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` looking much better! :)
Some minor comments:
* What would you think about making it detect the config? right now it's hard coded (to fedora-final.conf right now). But if "Beta" appears in the label it should be fedora-beta.conf otherwise fedora-final.conf.
* The dry-run / debugging '-d' is getting passed to commands, not that it matters, but minor nitpick. ie,
pungi-koji --notification-script=/usr/bin/pungi-fedmsg-notification --notification-script=pungi-wait -for-signed-ostree-handler --config=fedora-final.conf --old-composes=/mnt/koji/compose/40 --skip-pha se=productimg --label=40_Beta-1.1 --target-dir=/mnt/koji/compose/40 -d
(the -d at the end)
* For compose id, might check that it exists and exit if not:
COMPOSE_ID_2=$(cat "${TARGET_DIR}"/latest-$SHORT-"${FEDORA_VERSION}"/COMPOSE_ID)
ie, check for that existing before setting it. It should if pungi finished ok, but just in case, we don't want to mess up with the syncs if something weird happened to the compose.
Aside those minor things I think it might be ready. :)
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
jnsamyak commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` @patrikp, any updates on this? Do you have any blockers for this? ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
patrikp commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` @kevin I updated the script based on your feedback. The three things should now be fixed. CC: @jnsamyak ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
jnsamyak commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` @patrikp, the changes look ok to me, did you get a chance to dry run and check things? I still see `-d` being used in the actual script, any specific reason for it? Also, Can you write a corresponding SOP, Or, at least mention in the comments on how once can run this, what are the things it expects to pass in arguments?
Sadly, we weren't able to test it this release cycle as well ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
patrikp commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` PR with the updated SOPs can be found here: https://pagure.io/infra-docs-fpo/pull-request/294# ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
jnsamyak commented on the pull-request: `Fix/improve the release-candidate script.` that you are following: `` PR for the SOP has been merged, I'm merging this PR for now, but we need to test it in the next release cycle for sure! ``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/1223
jnsamyak merged a pull-request against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are following.
Merged pull-request:
`` Fix/improve the release-candidate script. ``
rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Kevin Fenzi -
Patrik Polakovič
-
Samyak Jain
-
Tomáš Hrčka