RFC: Fedora revamp proposal

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:48:29 -0500 (EST)
Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> wrote:

> The idea is autoqa (but those test run as part of package build could
> be part of it too). Yes, it means it will take a time to have a good
> set of tests and with autoqa support it's main problem I see but...

So, say I do the following: 

- announce a week in advance that libfoo is going to break abi. 
- mail all the affected package maintainers that I will rebuild their
  packages. 
- test rebuilding locally and fix things. 
- push new libfoo to build against it in rawhide. 

Then the new check says "Sorry, there's an ABI bump, fail"

How am I going to be able to tell it, 'yes, I know, but do it anyhow'

Then, when we answer that, whats to prevent people from just doing that
without doing all the proper steps. ;) 

I suppose one way would be to have the checker be the thing that
actually tags the package into f19 (or whatever). If it fails a test it
doesn't move it over, but a koji admin could manually tag something in.
That would lead to more work for releng tho. 

We could leave the tag open (as it is now) and anyone could override
and tag into f19, but then it's open for some abuse as someone might
just do that when they shouldn't. 

For released versions we could tie this check into bodhi I suppose. 
Have it require a 'pass' from some set of tests before being allowed to
go out as an update. 

...snip...

> Yep, it's really about the detail - that's why we have this thread.
> In the beginning it can definitely cause slow downs...

Sure. 

> From tooling perspective - that's the question if we want to enhance
> our tools, step into other similar project (for collaboration with
> our downstreams? other distros...).

yeah, I don't know. 

Perhaps someone could ask around and see if there's any projects/setups
inside Red Hat that would be good for this? ABI checking and perhaps
rpm diffing? 

Also, do any of the folks working on AutoQA think it could be used for
this? Or would they suggest a different framework?

I think we should definitely start small here and slowly work forward. 

The hardest part will be getting the initial tooling in place. 

(All this is assuming that this is a good idea that people want I
guess). ;) 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130305/3a6de83c/attachment.sig>