On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 14:27 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 04:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> There are a lot of images being produced and I have no idea if they're
> really needed. That a release blocking image (cloud base qcow2) nearly
> caused F25 alpha to slip because it was busted at least suggests it
> probably shouldn't be release blocking anymore. FWIW, cloud base qcow2
> now gets grub2 in lieu of extlinux as the work around for the
Puts us back at 231M for the qcow2, instead of 195M for F24. Ah well;
at least it boots.
Rather than having the Cloud Base Image — or its Server-based successor
— be blocking, I'd like to it as see an updated, automatically-tested
two-week image. Ideally, we'd have a solid one on release day, but if
we don't for some reason, it'd be less of a crisis.
We also, obviously, have a process breakdown with what to do with
failure reports from autocloud.
Right. We *have* the automated testing, but automated testing is no use
if no-one looks at the results and fixes the bugs. This is not really a
QA responsibility (even though I seem to be the one who always winds up
doing it for Server and Workstation; I do not have time to do it for
Cloud). Of course, in an 'ideal' world we'd have a more CI-ish setup
where changes that cause the tests to start failing get rejected, and
people are working on that - but the fact that we don't have it already
is not an excuse to ignore the test systems we already have in place.
I will note that I filed
crash when installing from the Atomic installer image - in *April*, and
no-one appears to care that the Atomic installer image has been broken
since then. This bug still shows up like clockwork in every F25 and
Rawhide compose tested in openQA. It makes me wonder why I put in the
effort to implement the openQA testing, if no-one cares when it finds a