[pungi-fedora] PR #598: Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu opened a new pull-request against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are
following:
``
Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
i'd still like to have this compose be called the `anaconda` compose... we have an
atomic compose we have a cloud compose, etc.. To me the barebones test for sanity checking
the state of a branch (f28 rawhide, etc) is that anaconda can be built and used. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Kellin]

kellin commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that you
are following:
``
I agree with @dustymabe that the compose should be named after our intended purpose.

I would rather we use `installer`  as the name for more clarity for those who may not
realize that the `installer` software is called `anaconda`.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
>  I agree with  @dustymabe that the compose should be named after our
> intended purpose.
>  
thanks

>  I would rather we use installer  as the name for more clarity for
> those who may not realize that the installer software is called anaconda.
>  
I'm +1 for `installer` too, but do have a slight preference  for `anaconda`. Either
one works. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
I am not a big fan of either one, as the usage can be extended to other packages which are
not installer specific.

I am calling this as Fedora-Minimal compose for now, what do you think?
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Kellin]

kellin commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that you
are following:
``
From a long term perspective, I don't think we should ever extend this past the
installer.

Anything we add will slow down our eventual desired end result for them and, if we find
more use cases later, we can add them at that time.

Let's not plan for complexity that may never exist.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
Tracking other packages is not going to slow down the compose process, probably adding
more composes which means more space (we have to gate on that, not starting a compose if
an existing one is running) but it wont slow down the compose process at all.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
I guess the concern here is answering the question "what is this compose for?".
I really think the name should reflect what it is for and I don't really think this
should be a compose that gets extended for things that land outside of the installer
scope.

What I'm saying is that the scope should be `installer only` or otherwise very well
defined. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
@dustymabe When we first got the request, it was definitely for installer related
packages(not all of them, but some), but then it might be extended to other packages.

So, I asked @adamwill to come up with a name for it.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
Right. I think what me and @kellin are saying is that it would be nice to have this work
appropriately scoped to just the installer and not some not well defined compose that
people end up throwing more and more stuff in to.

Maybe we should ask @adamwill for input on this topic/discussion. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
True, even if we call it as "Fedora-Installer" compose, we are not going to test
each and every installer related package and if we call it something else that doesn't
mean we will test any random package.

Its a set of packages that QA is defined/interested in(starting with anaconda).
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Adam Williamson]

adamwill commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
@dustymabe this is a more general problem than just 'the installer', though. There
are certainly other *potential* reasons we might want a compose to test an update. In my
head, what this 'thing' basically is is "a compose containing the bits from
update (FOO) for the purpose of testing update (FOO) in ways which require a compose to
test", if that clarifies things at all. Right *now*, the major "way which
requires a compose to test" that we're thinking about is "installer
tests", but there *could* be others.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
@adamwill, I understand. One possible *Other Use* I have for this compose is a bit of a
one off, but after GA it is useful for Atomic to be able to respin anaconda for a fix if
needed. If we had an **anaconda compose** then we just tag a new package and run the
compose by hand and use the output of that.

Barring that special use case.. Maybe we call this the `Fedora-minimal-qa` compose or
`Fedora-minimal-test` compose? 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Adam Williamson]

adamwill commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
I dunno, it's a tricky naming problem in general. I suggested Fedora-Updatetest...but
that only makes sense in terms of what it's *for*, it doesn't really make sense in
terms of what's *in* the compose.

I suppose the question is really this: if we decided we wanted a less minimal compose
profile for update testing in future, would we:

1) edit this one
2) keep this as a minimal compose profile, and create a new less-minimal profile

if 1), then 'Fedora-Updatetest' or so makes more sense. If 2), then a name like
'Fedora-Minimal' makes more sense...
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
This requires f28-update-test-compose tag
(https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598#_1,50) which inherits from f28 tag.

We use f28-update-test-compose tag to tag the builds that QA wants to test and everything
else will be pulled from the stable content(f28 content).
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Adam Williamson]

adamwill commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
Didn't we talk about this before and note that you'll need to be careful with
lifecycle management of that tag? Somehow you're going to have to ensure that each
time we run the 'minimal' compose the tag contains exactly the packages from the
update we're producing a compose for, *and no other packages* - so you're going to
have to keep tagging things in and out of it...
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Mohan Boddu]

mohanboddu commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
@adamwill Yes, when we automate this entire process, every time you request a compose with
certain set of builds to test, it will untag everything inside this tag and tag everything
you just requested.

And who ever running it manually until then needs to be careful and remember to do
untagging and tagging until everything is automated.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Dusty Mabe]

dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
hmm. is this not going to be automated? At least for anaconda testing I feel like it
should run once a day, as well as on-demand (i.e. when someone from anaconda has pushed a
new package and wants a new compose to run)
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Tomáš Hrčka]

humaton commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
Hi, this PR was opened for an old fedora-release that is EOL now. If it is still relevant
could you please reopen it to the current release?
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Tomáš Hrčka]

humaton closed without merging a pull-request against the project: `pungi-fedora` that
you
are following.

Closed pull-request:

``
Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing
``

https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598

[Adam Williamson]

adamwill commented on the pull-request: `Fedora Minimal Compose for OpenQA testing` that
you are following:
``
Well, we still have the use case, but before work started here I implemented it
differently (by having openQA build the images it needs to test itself). This means
we're duplicating work to some extent, but it got things going, and there were still
going to be some awkward little issues with actually using this compose (including coming
up with some kind of way to note what update each compose actually contained, in a way
openQA could consume).

So I think as long as that's working we can leave this on the back burner.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/598