On 12/09/2022 15:47, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 2:05 AM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org > <mailto:pperry at elrepo.org>> wrote: > > On 11/09/2022 08:41, Branislav Náter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 8:46 PM Leon Fauster via CentOS-devel > > <centos-devel at centos.org <mailto:centos-devel at centos.org> > <mailto:centos-devel at centos.org <mailto:centos-devel at centos.org>>> > wrote: > > > > I wonder about the current firefox build 91.13.0-1.el9? Its > not on the > > mirrors (comp 20220829) nor in the last prod compose > (20220909) / both > > lists firefox-91.11.0-2.el9 ... Thanks. > > > > > > For inclusion in the compose, it has to pass testing. Testing is > still > > in progress. > > > > > > I'm just trying to understand how it can still be in testing for Stream > when it has clearly passed testing and been released to RHEL? I thought > Stream sat 'upstream' of RHEL? > > What extra testing is performed for packages in Stream that is not > performed for the same packages in RHEL? What tests are failing? Should > we be concerned as RHEL users that we are not receiving the full > testing > experience? > > > So people know the sequence of events. > > firefox-91.13.0-1.el9_0 was built in RHEL 9.0 on 2022-08-18 > - The build passed all of it's gating tests. > - This was built on a RHEL 9.0 buildroot, and tested on a RHEL 9.0 buildroot > - This got pushed to RHEL 9.0 only > > firefox-91.13.0-1.el9 was built on CentOS Stream 9 and RHEL 9.1 on > 2022-08-25 > - This build did not pass it's gating tests - it still hasn't > - This was built on a RHEL 9.1 buildroot, and tested on a RHEL 9.1 buildroot > - As far as I can tell, it's got the same tests. It's possible that one > or more of the tests went from "warn when it fails" to "fail when it > fails", but it looks like the tests are the same. > - It's also possible that something changed in RHEL 9.1 that is causing > the tests to fail. > - I'm not on the firefox team, I'm just looking at the gating system, > and to be honest, when I look beyond the "passed" - "failed" parts and > into the results, I get lost. > > From everything I can see, this delay wasn't the result of an embargo, > simply tests not passing. > > Troy > Thank you Troy - great explanation :-) Regards, Phil