autoqa-devel January 2010

autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org

5 participants
50 discussions

Re: merging kparal/rpmguard-integration into master
by Kamil Paral 08 Jan '10

08 Jan '10

----- "Will Woods" <wwoods(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > Actually, one question - did you make rpmguard AGPLv3 (instead of > GPLv3) > intentionally? If so, why? Should we think about relicensing other > tests > as AGPLv3? > Err, the licensing problems... :) Actually I try to license all my personal projects under AGPL, so I put it here too. We can change it to anything that is suitable for/compatible with our project. Personally I prefer AGPL to GPL because it applies not only to traditional way of distributing source code (downloading and running locally) but also to using the source code as a web service. These days almost anything can be used as a web service (even traditional end-user software like openoffice - eg. for document conversion on the server). Everything starts to be pushed "to the cloud". So, some big company could come, take many opensource projects, heavily modify them and offer the result as a web service - and give nothing back. I don't like that idea, because I believe the principles that are the core of GPL do not relate to distribution channels - just the cloud computing simply didn't exist back in time when GPL was created. This also confirms RMS, who said that the very definition of AGPL3 should have really been the GPL3. But he was afraid the GPL3 wouldn't be adopted by many groups at all, and there were also other important changes to push ahead, so he split them into GPL3 (the basic one) and AGPL3 (the extra amendment about web distribution). He was probably right, companies like Google don't object against GPL3, but they would be extremely reluctant to adopt software under AGPL3 (see allowed licenses for Google Code hosting :). So, that's my point of view, I don't see any reason to prefer GPL to (more freedom ensuring) AGPL. Maybe except for license compatibility: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility AGPL3 is not listed in the matrix - I suppose it should fall into same category as GPL3, but I am not sure. I will try to ask FSF probably. Once again, this was my opinion used for my personal projects. It's up to you to decide for the license. (I don't even know if - as an employee of Red Hat - I am or I am not obliged to publish my work under some specific license. I suppose when concerning Fedora stuff it's up to our choosing as long as it's OSS license. The copyright probably goes to Red Hat.) PS: I really hate that we have to study lawyer stuff to publish work as free and open :)

1 0

merging kparal/rpmguard-integration into master
by Kamil Paral 07 Jan '10

07 Jan '10

Hi, it seems to me that the kparal/rpmguard-integration branch is now mature enough to be merged into master. You can try the rpmguard test by issuing: 1. checkout kparal/rpmguard-integration branch 2. $ /usr/share/autoqa/post-koji-build/watch-koji-builds.py --dry-run 3. pick a line 4. $ (copy that line) -t rpmguard --local And look to stdout or rpmguard.log. Example rpmguard.log: http://pastebin.com/f534d362f http://pastebin.com/f42ca41cd What do you think, any objections to merge? Send all blame to me, thanks. Kamil PS: It doesn't currently send results by email, same as current rpmlint test. I hope we will discuss enabling them both soon after.

3 3

AutoQA patch process
by Li Ming 07 Jan '10

07 Jan '10

Hi, I copied Jame Laska's beaker patch process and did some updates to create this patch process for AutoQA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_PatchProcess Hope this can help the people who want to send patch for AutoQA. Please feel free to correct mistakes and give comments Thanks Liam

2 1

rpmguard wiki page
by Kamil Paral 07 Jan '10

07 Jan '10

Hello, I have created a separate rpmguard page, you can have a look at: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/wiki/rpmguard More to come, stay tuned. Kamil

2 1

tests/conflicts/potential_conflict.py failed to run,line 191 changed
by Li Ming 07 Jan '10

07 Jan '10

Hi, When run case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts, the script was failed, I modified line 191 Thanks Liam

3 4

[AutoQA] #99: rpmguard: Document rpmguard's checks
by fedora-badges 07 Jan '10

07 Jan '10

#99: rpmguard: Document rpmguard's checks ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: kparal | Owner: kparal Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Package update tests Component: tests | Version: 1.0 Keywords: rpmguard | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Document all checks that rpmguard performs, add a short explanation to each. Current possible destination is the AutoQA Trac wiki. Blocked on ticket #98. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/99> AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org> Automated QA project

1 1

[AutoQA] #105: library code to set up exports / test env. for NFS install tests
by fedora-badges 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

#105: library code to set up exports / test env. for NFS install tests --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- Reporter: wwoods | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Automate installation test plan Component: tests | Version: 1.0 Keywords: | --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- We'll need some reusable library code for setting up NFS exports in order to automate install tests requiring the install source (or kickstart) to be on NFS. For example: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/InstallSourceNfs * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/KickstartKsNfsServerPathKsCfg -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/105> AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org> Automated QA project

1 0

Re: [AutoQA] #98: rpmguard: Improve output format
by fedora-badges 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

#98: rpmguard: Improve output format --------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Package update tests Component: tests | Version: 1.0 Resolution: fixed | Keywords: rpmguard --------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Changes (by kparal): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Fixed by commit ca7f1e0ce0f22ddfdfe9c10c9e3b1f3beea88209. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/98#comment:1> AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org> Automated QA project

1 0

TRAC tickets bcc'd to the mailing list?
by James Laska 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Hey folks, Would people be interested in having trac ticket updates automatically bcc'd to the mailing list? I thought it might increase the visibility the milestones people are working on. But wasn't sure if people would consider it SPAM. Thanks, James

2 2

wiki - Verifying AutoQA tests
by Kamil Paral 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Hello, I have tried to create another piece of documentation, that could help new test developers testing their new tests :) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Verifying_AutoQA_tests Feel free to improve. Kamil

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

autoqa-devel January 2010