[yocto] QA cycle report for 2.6 M4 RC1

[akuster808]

On 11/11/18 1:24 PM, richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> 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.

Nope. I am good. If it is functional I am good with it.  We can address
the other issues later.

thanks,

Armin

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>