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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ``
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
rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org