ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak <lukasz.zemczak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

I'll work on making sure this is conveniently automated for the case of
RTM-only projects. I might need to consult some things with Colin, as
there are some special cases here and there.

I have a few ideas on how to proceed though.

W dniu 21.08.2014 o 23:22, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo pisze:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Pat McGowan <pat.mcgowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> The idea is to land in utopic first and then copy the source+binaries to
>>> an rtm silo for retesting; and if the changes actually require a rebuild due
>>> to the nature of the divergent paths of the archives, push the source
>>> package with a backport look a like version tag (e.g.;
>>> $upstream-$packaging~rtm1).
>>
>> Isn't this an option we could automate, add a flag to the spreadsheet to do
>> the rtm silo after the utopic silo is published? I expect this is the 90%
>> use case so lets optimize for it.
> 
> There's really no reason why this can't be automated.
> 
> If an extra QA is needed, then we could just automate everything but
> the QA sign-off. The manual process to request another landing,
> waiting to get a silo, building and then waiting QA to sign off is
> just unreal.
> 
> Cheers,
> 


-- 
Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak
 lukasz.zemczak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 www.canonical.com