On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 10:02 +0200, Josef Skladanka wrote:
I'm not trying to get personal, or petty, but in almost three
months, we
were not able to agree even on what the "scenario" should be. I came from
"this is nonsense" to "OK, if used systematically, this can be
helpful",
Adam is on the path of switching from "Why do you guys need to make
everything so overcomplicated, this is but a string!" to "Well, some of
what you said actually makes sense, now that I think about it a bit more",
but that's about it. We do "something" now, but we don't do it in a
known,
defined way, so while this works for some cases, it does not for others.
And more than that - we are not even really sure where it does and does not
work.
I'd say that's going a bit far. We *do* do it in a known, defined way
(at least I thought we'd agreed on one). However, it doesn't yet
entirely solve the problem that needs solving. This doesn't seem
surprising, we don't usually get things exactly right with v1.0.
I'm still thinking it through, for now, plus I'm trying to deal with
Beta blockers. The code we have for the present does do the job, even
if it's not pretty, so I'm not super desperate to change stuff right
now. We can think about it for a bit.
One thought I have that is pretty solid (and unchanged) is that I
really *do* think the 'scenario problem' is going to affect the
majority of results. At the very least, a lot of tests are going to be
per-arch. I do believe the idea that the current /latest mechanism will
work for most cases is wrong.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net