[yocto] QA cycle report for 2.6 M4 RC1

[richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]

On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 13:18 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> On 11/11/18 2:21 AM, richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 10:02 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> > > On 11/10/18 8:25 AM, richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 09:24 +0000, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
> > > > > This is the full report for 2.6 M4 RC1: 
> > > > > 
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW44_-_2018-10-30_-_Full_Test_Cycle_2.6_M4_RC1
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks Sangeeta and team!
> > > > 
> > > > Now we have the QA report for YP 2.6 M4 rc1 (Final 2.6) we need
> > > > to make
> > > > a release go or nogo decision. To do this we have the
> > > > following:
> > > >  
> > > > QA Report: 
> > > > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/WW44_-_2018-10-30_-_Full_Test_Cycle_2.6_M4_RC1
> > > > Release Criteria: 
> > > > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v2.6_Status#Milestone_4.2FFinal_-_Target_Oct._26.2C_2018
> > > > 
> > > > We'd be happy to take representations from members and the
> > > > community to
> > > > help reach that decision.
> > > 
> > > Regarding. 
> > > Bug 12991 - [2.6 M4 RC1][Build-Appliance] Bitbake build-
> > > appliance-
> > > image getting failed during building image due to webkitgtk
> > > package
> > > Does it mean the Build-Appliance is non functioning ?  It was
> > > broken
> > > at the Sumo release time as well. Should it be dropped as the
> > > release
> > > criteria?
> > 
> > Build-appliance is a tricky test as it tests multiple things,
> > roughly:
> > 
> > * vmdk images under vmware
> > * the web browser
> > * toaster
> > * whether we can self host (build poky within poky)
> > 
> > The fact the webkit recipe failed to build may be due to several
> > reasons:
> > 
> > * random race type condition
> > * lack of memory in the VM
> > * phase of the moon
> > * other things
> > 
> > I'm not convinced its a release blocker, or that it invalidates the
> > b-a 
> > test, or that it would even reproduce. If it does reproduce that
> > would
> > be more interesting and easier to debug.
> 
> ok, but is the b-a functional  in 2.6?

It booted under VMWare, I believe the web browser was functional and it
managed a build to a point somewhere in webkitgtk which was the only
failure in the build.

I suspect but have little evidence that the failure was a race or
system resource issue rather than a functionality problem with b-a.
Does that make b-a functional? In my view, yes, your view may vary.

Cheers,

Richard