On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 06:42:59PM GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:34:31PM +0900, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 03:02:58PM GMT, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 09:57:32PM +0900, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
I'd wait for them to be made GA.
New macOS releases have historically introduced changes that require libvirt to adapt, sometimes with significant effort, and I wouldn't want anyone to spend time investigating a build failure that can potentially affect the Beta version of the OS but not the GA one.
Actually I'm wrong. Looking more closely the sequoia image there is an RC, not a Beta. The beta images was referring to 15.1, not 15.0, and they are named separately as sequoia-beta. Using an RC is reliable enough IMHO
I still think there's no reason to rush before the image is GA'd, but if the build job succeeds with the RC image and there is no post-GA churn involved I won't stand in the way of a libvirt-ci MR taking that approach instead of mine[1].
By that rationale we also won't test against rawhide, or sid, etc. IMHO the earlier we test against a platform the better, so if an image is available we should use it.
Rawhide and sid are unstable targets *by design*, which we acknowledge by allowing the respective jobs to fail without considering the entire pipeline as failed. This is more akin to adding e.g. Fedora 41 as a target when GA is not out yet but RC is. Which is not something that, as far as I know, we've ever done. Anyway, I've approved the libvirt-ci MR fixing the image name. Michal, if you squash in the obvious diff and confirm that the pipeline still passes, you can have my Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com> and push this. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization