QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)


Sangeeta Jain
 

Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795

Thanks,
Sangeeta

-----Original Message-----
From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf
Of pokybuild@centos7-ty-3.yocto.io
Sent: Wednesday, 12 February, 2020 3:56 PM
To: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
<apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>;
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org; akuster808@gmail.com;
sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>
Subject: [yocto] QA notification for completed autobuilder build (yocto-
3.0.2.rc2)


A build flagged for QA (yocto-3.0.2.rc2) was completed on the autobuilder and is
available at:


https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/releases/yocto-3.0.2.rc2


Build hash information:

bitbake: 95687be83e716220eb3893b67428f97fd59fc2c5
meta-gplv2: 0f4eecc000f66d114ad258fa31aed66afa292166
meta-intel: b04e1edb9300a57e200a187a3255f67b50519202
meta-mingw: 756963cc28ebc163df7d7f4b4ee004c18d3d3260
oecore: 799b3cd1016bd765f4452a5e81ea5613c9089bce
poky: fe857e4179355bcfb79303c16baf3ad87fca59a4



This is an automated message from the Yocto Project Autobuilder
Git: git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-autobuilder2
Email: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org



Armin Kuster
 

On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test 'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
Thank you for logging the defects.

I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.

regards,
Armin

Thanks,
Sangeeta

-----Original Message-----
From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf
Of pokybuild@centos7-ty-3.yocto.io
Sent: Wednesday, 12 February, 2020 3:56 PM
To: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
<apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>;
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org; akuster808@gmail.com;
sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>
Subject: [yocto] QA notification for completed autobuilder build (yocto-
3.0.2.rc2)


A build flagged for QA (yocto-3.0.2.rc2) was completed on the autobuilder and is
available at:


https://autobuilder.yocto.io/pub/releases/yocto-3.0.2.rc2


Build hash information:

bitbake: 95687be83e716220eb3893b67428f97fd59fc2c5
meta-gplv2: 0f4eecc000f66d114ad258fa31aed66afa292166
meta-intel: b04e1edb9300a57e200a187a3255f67b50519202
meta-mingw: 756963cc28ebc163df7d7f4b4ee004c18d3d3260
oecore: 799b3cd1016bd765f4452a5e81ea5613c9089bce
poky: fe857e4179355bcfb79303c16baf3ad87fca59a4



This is an automated message from the Yocto Project Autobuilder
Git: git://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-autobuilder2
Email: richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org



Richard Purdie
 

On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:

On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
Thank you for logging the defects.

I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?

In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest
regression above is related to that or not? Any recommendation?

Cheers,

Richard


Khem Raj
 

On 2/19/20 2:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:

On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797)
openssh ptest failed (BUG id:13796)
bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
Thank you for logging the defects.

I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?
In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest
regression above is related to that or not? Any recommendation?
I agree, two failures are openssh related and I think they should be root caused.

Cheers,
Richard


Anuj Mittal
 

On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:

On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contrib
/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797) openssh ptest failed (BUG
id:13796) bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
From the error log, it looks like we are trying to install 7.67 while zeus has 7.66 so it errors out. I am guessing that curl wasn't built in a clean build directory so the correct version of curl is deployed. Can this test be re-run please?

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
This needs:

https://github.com/openssh/openssh-portable/commit/ff31f15773ee173502eec4d7861ec56f26bba381

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
Was because of the bash CVE patch.


Thank you for logging the defects.

I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?

In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest regression above
is related to that or not? Any recommendation?
Looks like it's related but I don't think the impact is much. The test is failing because the line number that is expected to fail changed (because of the lines being added in the test). So we should be okay in my opinion.

Thanks,

Anuj


Sangeeta Jain
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com>
Sent: Thursday, 20 February, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; akuster808
<akuster808@gmail.com>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>;
yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
<apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com;
Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 -0800, akuster808 wrote:

On 2/18/20 11:33 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:
Hi All,

This is the full report for yocto-3.0.2.rc2:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-testresults-contr
ib
/tree/?h=intel-yocto-testresults

======= Summary ========
No high milestone defects.
one new defects are found in this cycle - oeqa/runtime test
'test_dnf_exclude' failed (Bugid:13797) openssh ptest failed (BUG
id:13796) bash ptest failed (BUG id:13795)

======= Bugs ========
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13797
From the error log, it looks like we are trying to install 7.67 while zeus has 7.66
so it errors out. I am guessing that curl wasn't built in a clean build directory so
the correct version of curl is deployed. Can this test be re-run please?
Re-run the test in new build directory and after having 'bitbake curl'.
It is passing now. Updating bug in Bugzila.


https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13796
This needs:

https://github.com/openssh/openssh-
portable/commit/ff31f15773ee173502eec4d7861ec56f26bba381

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13795
Was because of the bash CVE patch.


Thank you for logging the defects.

I suspect this in now in the hands of the YP TSC.
What is the stable maintainer's thoughts on this?

In particular I'm worried about the bash patch and whether the ptest
regression above is related to that or not? Any recommendation?
Looks like it's related but I don't think the impact is much. The test is failing
because the line number that is expected to fail changed (because of the lines
being added in the test). So we should be okay in my opinion.

Thanks,

Anuj


Richard Purdie
 

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:

* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release

We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.

We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
results.

Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
for everyone?

Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
figure that out.

Cheers,

Richard


Armin Kuster
 



On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:

* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release

We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.

We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
results.

Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
for everyone?
Works for me.

Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
figure that out.

List them as Known issues?

- armin

Cheers,

Richard



    


Sangeeta Jain
 

 

 

From: akuster <akuster@...>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 7:01 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@...>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@...>; akuster808 <akuster808@...>; yocto@...
Cc: otavio@...; yi.zhao@...; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@...>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@...>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@...>; sjolley.yp.pm@...; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@...>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

 

 

On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:
 
* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release
 
We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.
 
We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
results.
 
 
Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
for everyone?

Works for me.

Sound good from QA perspective. Verifying automated test results and ptest results should be good.

 

 
 
Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
figure that out.


List them as Known issues?

Release should be done on rc3. Status of bugs can be updated in ‘header-intel.txt’. Just my thoughts!



- armin

 
 
Cheers,
 
Richard
 




 


Adrian Bunk
 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:44:24PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
...
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.
...
I would consider this too risky for a last-minute addition
since it is a non-urgent optimization and not a regression fix.

Cheers,

Richard
cu
Adrian


Richard Purdie
 

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 10:03 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:44:24PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
...
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during
parsing
which merged.
...
I would consider this too risky for a last-minute addition
since it is a non-urgent optimization and not a regression fix.
It can be argued its a bug fix which lets things work which otherwise
bring machines to a halt with swap/OOM conditions, its a pretty serious
memory usage leak (latest report says it reduces a 45GB memory use to
4.5GB on a real workload).

Speaking as someone who knows the code well and has an idea of the
impact of the change, I believe it to be safe. It was already also
merged with 3.0.3 in mind and hasn't caused any issues in master.

Excluding it from the respin would be harder and more disruptive than
not at this point due to the change to 3.0.3 so its been included.

Cheers,

Richard


Armin Kuster
 

Jain,

On 2/20/20 5:57 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:

 

 

From: akuster <akuster@...>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 7:01 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@...>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@...>; akuster808 <akuster808@...>; yocto@...
Cc: otavio@...; yi.zhao@...; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@...>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@...>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@...>; sjolley.yp.pm@...; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@...>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

 

 

On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:
 
* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release
 
We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.
 
We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
results.
 
 
Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
for everyone?

Works for me.

Sound good from QA perspective. Verifying automated test results and ptest results should be good.

Zeus-rc3 finished. the QA email failed to send.

- armin

 

 
 
Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
figure that out.


List them as Known issues?

Release should be done on rc3. Status of bugs can be updated in ‘header-intel.txt’. Just my thoughts!



- armin

 
 
Cheers,
 
Richard
 




          

 



Vineela
 

Hello Richard,

-----Original Message-----
From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf Of Richard Purdie
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj <Anuj.Mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:

* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release

We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing which merged.

We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test results.

Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3 email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works for everyone?

Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to figure that out.

[Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not 3.0.2.rc2 as we see issues with that. Am I correct?
If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things like staging 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and get it reviewed once I get the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA team.

Thanks,
Vineela

Cheers,

Richard


Richard Purdie
 

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 17:26 +0000, Tummalapalli, Vineela wrote:
[Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not
3.0.2.rc2 as we see issues with that. Am I correct?
If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things
like staging 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and
get it reviewed once I get the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA
team.
Yes, however the QA team aren't going to rerun all the tests, only
check the issue which regressed is fixed.

A new build did complete but a QA email wasn't sent out. Armin started
that build so I'm not sure whether that was the plan or not (the build
wasn't configured to). Armin?

Cheers,

Richard


Armin Kuster
 



On 2/21/20 9:38 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 17:26 +0000, Tummalapalli, Vineela wrote:
[Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not
3.0.2.rc2 as we see issues with that. Am I correct?
If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things
like staging 3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and
get it reviewed once I get the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA
team.
Yes, however the QA team aren't going to rerun all the tests, only
check the issue which regressed is fixed.

A new build did complete but a QA email wasn't sent out. Armin started
that build so I'm not sure whether that was the plan or not (the build
wasn't configured to). Armin?
I did't think a full QA round was needed. Bash ptest just needs to be double checked.

openssh has a fix but will be in the next dot release.

- armin

Cheers,

Richard



    


Sangeeta Jain
 

Hi Armin,

 

Thanks for informing. I didn’t receive any mail for zeus-rc3.

As agreed earlier, QA team is not running test cycle for zeus-rc3.

I have verified ptest results for rc3, “bash.run-glob-test” is passing.

Also, no new ptest failures in rc3.

 

Thanks,

Sangeeta

 

 

 

From: akuster808 <akuster808@...>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 11:38 PM
To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@...>; Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@...>; yocto@...
Cc: otavio@...; yi.zhao@...; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@...>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@...>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@...>; sjolley.yp.pm@...; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@...>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

 

Jain,

On 2/20/20 5:57 PM, Jain, Sangeeta wrote:

 

 

From: akuster <akuster@...>
Sent: Friday, 21 February, 2020 7:01 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...>; Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@...>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@...>; akuster808 <akuster808@...>; yocto@...
Cc: otavio@...; yi.zhao@...; Sangal, Apoorv <apoorv.sangal@...>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@...>; Chan, Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@...>; sjolley.yp.pm@...; Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@...>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

 

 

On 2/20/20 2:44 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:
 
* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it
doesn't affect release
* The bash issue does affect release
 
We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing
which merged.
 
We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test
results.
 
 
Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3
email but we're just expecting to check the test results if that works
for everyone?

Works for me.


Sound good from QA perspective. Verifying automated test results and ptest results should be good.


Zeus-rc3 finished. the QA email failed to send.

- armin

 

 
 
Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to
figure that out.


List them as Known issues?

Release should be done on rc3. Status of bugs can be updated in ‘header-intel.txt’. Just my thoughts!



- armin


 
 
Cheers,
 
Richard
 





 

 


Sangeeta Jain
 

Hi Vineela,

-----Original Message-----
From: Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Sent: Saturday, 22 February, 2020 1:27 AM
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>; Jain, Sangeeta
<sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj <anuj.mittal@intel.com>; akuster808
<akuster808@gmail.com>; yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
<apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

Hello Richard,

-----Original Message-----
From: yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org> On Behalf
Of Richard Purdie
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Jain, Sangeeta <sangeeta.jain@intel.com>; Mittal, Anuj
<Anuj.Mittal@intel.com>; akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com>;
yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org
Cc: otavio@ossystems.com.br; yi.zhao@windriver.com; Sangal, Apoorv
<apoorv.sangal@intel.com>; Yeoh, Ee Peng <ee.peng.yeoh@intel.com>; Chan,
Aaron Chun Yew <aaron.chun.yew.chan@intel.com>; sjolley.yp.pm@gmail.com;
Tummalapalli, Vineela <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [yocto] QA Cycle report for build (yocto-3.0.2.rc2)

I discussed this quickly in bug triage today with Armin. We agreed
that:

* The openssh bug is minor and doesn't affect release
* Anuj resolved one of the bugs as being execution error so again it doesn't
affect release
* The bash issue does affect release

We're proposing we build and release an rc3 with the bash CVE reverted.
This would also include the bitbake memory optimisation during parsing which
merged.

We wouldn't rerun the manual QA for rc3, just check the automated test results.

Does anyone have any objection to that? If not, QA should see an rc3 email but
we're just expecting to check the test results if that works for everyone?

Vineela: Not sure how this affects release process, we'll just have to figure that
out.

[Vineela]: So we will have 3.0.2.rc3 as the release candidate and not 3.0.2.rc2 as
we see issues with that. Am I correct?
If so, in terms of release process I just have to redo the things like staging
3.0.2.rc3 and do the release notes and test report and get it reviewed once I get
the test results for 3.0.2.rc3 from QA team.
As agreed earlier, QA team will not be running QA cycle for 3.0.2.rc3.
You may proceed for release once Richard/Armin confirm verification of automated test results.

Thanks,
Sangeeta


Thanks,
Vineela

Cheers,

Richard