8:56 a.m.
Hi,
Is it still possible to propose an alternative solution? Or am I coming too
late?
Thanks,
Fred
9:18 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
Hi,
Is it still possible to propose an alternative solution? Or am I coming
too late?
No decision have been made yet but I think Stef wanted to make a decision soon.
Could you expand on what you have in mind?
Thanks,
Pierre
9:26 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
> Hi,
> Is it still possible to propose an alternative solution? Or am I
coming
> too late?
No decision have been made yet but I think Stef wanted to make a decision
soon.
Could you expand on what you have in mind?
I would like to propose to reuse the DEP 8 format to allow to have a richer
set of metadata and btw to be able to reconcile the 2 already proposed
solutions.
Fred
9:31 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:26:37PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
<pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
>Â Â Hi,
>Â Â Is it still possible to propose an alternative solution? Or am I
coming
>Â Â too late?
No decision have been made yet but I think Stef wanted to make a
decision soon.
Could you expand on what you have in mind?
I would like to propose to reuse the DEP 8 format to allow to have a
richer set of metadata and btw to be able to reconcile the 2 already
proposed solutions.
Would you have a link describing it? Looking for DEP returns something in
Windows, looking further I find something in Debian which I suspect is what you
are referring to, but it's not really clear.
Thanks,
Pierre
10:10 a.m.
On 13.04.2017 16:31, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:26:37PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
> >Â Â Hi,
> >Â Â Is it still possible to propose an alternative solution? Or am I
> coming
> >Â Â too late?
>
> No decision have been made yet but I think Stef wanted to make a
> decision soon.
>
> Could you expand on what you have in mind?
>
> I would like to propose to reuse the DEP 8 format to allow to have a
> richer set of metadata and btw to be able to reconcile the 2 already
> proposed solutions.
Would you have a link describing it? Looking for DEP returns something in
Windows, looking further I find something in Debian which I suspect is what you
are referring to, but it's not really clear.
As far as being too late? Folks actually want to be porting and writing
tests. So the goal is to unblock those folks. From the current
evaluations, it looks like folks want to write tests in a standard
Ansible form.
If DEP 8, or RPM packaging, or another solution somehow edges out that
choice, it will need to be able invoke the ported/written tests as they
without significant change.
So all that to say. I'm not against an alternative solution, however I
don't thinks folks will wait for long for it.
The first step is to document it completely, work on the examples and so
on. Are you up for that? To start, copy a page like this to your own
wiki page, and fill everything in, including examples, with real working
code:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsPackaged
Cheers,
Stef
11:55 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 13.04.2017 16:31, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:26:37PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <
pingou(a)pingoured.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:56:14PM +0200, Frederic Lepied wrote:
>> >Â Â Hi,
>> >Â Â Is it still possible to propose an alternative solution? Or
am I
>> coming
>> >Â Â too late?
>>
>> No decision have been made yet but I think Stef wanted to make a
>> decision soon.
>>
>> Could you expand on what you have in mind?
>>
>> I would like to propose to reuse the DEP 8 format to allow to have a
>> richer set of metadata and btw to be able to reconcile the 2 already
>> proposed solutions.
>
> Would you have a link describing it? Looking for DEP returns something in
> Windows, looking further I find something in Debian which I suspect is
what you
> are referring to, but it's not really clear.
As far as being too late? Folks actually want to be porting and writing
tests. So the goal is to unblock those folks. From the current
evaluations, it looks like folks want to write tests in a standard
Ansible form.
If DEP 8, or RPM packaging, or another solution somehow edges out that
choice, it will need to be able invoke the ported/written tests as they
without significant change.
So all that to say. I'm not against an alternative solution, however I
don't thinks folks will wait for long for it.
The first step is to document it completely, work on the examples and so
on. Are you up for that? To start, copy a page like this to your own
wiki page, and fill everything in, including examples, with real working
code:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsPackaged
ok working on the page now.
Fred
12:56 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Frederic Lepied <flepied(a)redhat.com> wrote:
ok working on the page now.
Here is the page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsControl
. Let me know if anything is not clear or missing.
Fred
1:20 p.m.
On 13.04.2017 13:56, Frederic Lepied wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Frederic Lepied <flepied(a)redhat.com
<mailto:flepied@redhat.com>> wrote:
ok working on the page now.
Here is the
page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsControl . Let
me know if anything is not clear or missing.
It's an interesting proposal.
But it seems that this requires a port of the autopkgtest to support
rpm/dnf? Is that already in progress somewhere? If not, I guess that's
the main thing that's missing?
After that what are the specific commands, environment, and tasks that a
testing system uses to stage and invoke the tests. What kind of system
should those commands be invoked on?
Also missing is a complete functioning example of how the test is
described in dist-git. Preferrably with a link to a dist-git repo close
where you've stored the test, control file, and explain how to invoke it
on a current Fedora system.
Cheers,
Stef
2:05 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 13.04.2017 13:56, Frederic Lepied wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Frederic Lepied <flepied(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:flepied@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> ok working on the page now.
>
>
>
> Here is the
> page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsControl . Let
> me know if anything is not clear or missing.
It's an interesting proposal.
But it seems that this requires a port of the autopkgtest to support
rpm/dnf? Is that already in progress somewhere? If not, I guess that's
the main thing that's missing?
Yes I have it working locally on my laptop. That's more a hack but it's
working.
After that what are the specific commands, environment, and tasks that a
testing system uses to stage and invoke the tests. What kind of system
should those commands be invoked on?
Ok I'll add an example call to the wiki page.
Also missing is a complete functioning example of how the test is
described in dist-git. Preferrably with a link to a dist-git repo close
where you've stored the test, control file, and explain how to invoke it
on a current Fedora system.
Ok I have tried to describe the files in the example but I'll create a
dist-git.
Fred
6:33 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Frederic Lepied <flepied(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 13.04.2017 13:56, Frederic Lepied wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Frederic Lepied <flepied(a)redhat.com
> > <mailto:flepied@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > ok working on the page now.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is the
> > page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsControl . Let
> > me know if anything is not clear or missing.
>
> It's an interesting proposal.
>
> But it seems that this requires a port of the autopkgtest to support
> rpm/dnf? Is that already in progress somewhere? If not, I guess that's
> the main thing that's missing?
>
Yes I have it working locally on my laptop. That's more a hack but it's
working.
>
> After that what are the specific commands, environment, and tasks that a
> testing system uses to stage and invoke the tests. What kind of system
> should those commands be invoked on?
>
>
Ok I'll add an example call to the wiki page.
> Also missing is a complete functioning example of how the test is
> described in dist-git. Preferrably with a link to a dist-git repo close
> where you've stored the test, control file, and explain how to invoke it
> on a current Fedora system.
>
>
Ok I have tried to describe the files in the example but I'll create a
dist-git.
I have added a dist-git repo for the systemd example and we have also
created a CI pipeline to demonstrate that a bad change is detected by the
tests: https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/7495/ and you can also look
at the details of the CI job: https://softwarefactory-
project.io/jenkins/job/fedora-integration-test/7/console
How could I make people aware of this alternative choice? Should I contact
those who have already voted? Or is there a way to let them know?
Thanks,
--
Fred
5:50 a.m.
On 14.04.2017 13:33, Frederic Lepied wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Frederic Lepied
<flepied(a)redhat.com
<mailto:flepied@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com
<mailto:stefw@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 13.04.2017 13:56, Frederic Lepied wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Frederic Lepied <flepied(a)redhat.com
<mailto:flepied@redhat.com>
> <mailto:flepied@redhat.com <mailto:flepied@redhat.com>>>
wrote:
>
> ok working on the page now.
>
>
>
> Here is the
> page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsControl
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InvokingTestsControl> . Let
> me know if anything is not clear or missing.
It's an interesting proposal.
But it seems that this requires a port of the autopkgtest to support
rpm/dnf? Is that already in progress somewhere? If not, I guess
that's
the main thing that's missing?
Yes I have it working locally on my laptop. That's more a hack but
it's working.
After that what are the specific commands, environment, and
tasks that a
testing system uses to stage and invoke the tests. What kind of
system
should those commands be invoked on?
Ok I'll add an example call to the wiki page.
Also missing is a complete functioning example of how the test is
described in dist-git. Preferrably with a link to a dist-git
repo close
where you've stored the test, control file, and explain how to
invoke it
on a current Fedora system.
Ok I have tried to describe the files in the example but I'll create
a dist-git.
I have added a dist-git repo for the systemd example and we have also
created a CI pipeline to demonstrate that a bad change is detected by
the tests: https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/7495/
<https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/#/c/7495/> and you can also look
at the details of the CI
job: https://softwarefactory-project.io/jenkins/job/fedora-integration-test/7/...
<https://softwarefactory-project.io/jenkins/job/fedora-integration-test/7/...
Nice. Thanks for fleshing it out.
How could I make people aware of this alternative choice? Should I
contact those who have already voted? Or is there a way to let them know?
Yes, that makes sense. I imagine some of them have not subscribed to
this mailing list.
Stef
2571
days inactive
2575
days old
10 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Frederic Lepied -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Stef Walter