acceptability of updates-testing breakage vs. rawhide breakage
awilliam at redhat.com
Sat Jan 11 13:35:29 UTC 2014
On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 11:02 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > People are working on taskotron ( successor of autoqa ) and this will
> > likely prevent this kind of issue in the future, I hope. If you feel
> > that's important to make sure this doesn't happen, they will always
> > accept any kind of help. But in the mean time, as this is IMHO the most
> > beging type of breakage, I think we can tolerate them from time to time
> > until we can properly automate the checking.
> We do have the automated checking we just don't use it. (autoqa does
> dep checks but we do not do any action on them; the updates causing
> broken deps should simply be unpushed).
As we've explained multiple times, the current depcheck test is too
unreliable to 'enforce'.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel