Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Check out https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2004-126.html. See how there are two i386 packages listed and two s390 packages listed together? That shouldn't be that way. One of the i386 packages should actually be appearing in the x86_64 channel, and one of the s390 packages should actually be in the s390x channel. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Over to bretm.
Deferring to rhn350.
And to rhn360.
ok, we're grouping now by channel arch, which is about the best i can do given the current data in the db. adding mjc to make sure new format is ok w/ him.
jkt, assigning you as qa contact for this one.
Comparing http://rhn.webdev.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2004-126.html and http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2004-126.html This looks good to me, and it also more correctly identifies x86_64 rather than AMD64 It also groups things nicely for kernel errata http://rhn.webdev.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-416.html and for OpenSSL where only some i686 packages exist: http://rhn.webdev.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-120.html So this change looks fine.
Things look very good on Dev. Not sure what the next step should be, but putting it in QA_READY seems to make sense, so doing that.
Doc notes: this is customer facing, but not part of the normal RHN web application, so I don't think it's really necessary to note it in our release notes. But, that's up to you.
Test plan?
Fanny, this isn't something that really needs to be qa'ed by you or taw. From my perspective, this is something that is best qa'ed by mcox and/or jkt, which is why jkt is the QA contact for this bug. If this is a problem, please come see me w/ taw and we can figure the right thing out. Moving back to QA_READY, as last indicated by jkt.
correct... jkt is the man for this IMHO.
Yes, and it gets a positive vote from me; the change looked good on all the strange cases I threw at it.
QA push. {ON_DEV,QA_READY} --> ON_QA
webqa looks good. Moving to Prod_Ready and preparing for the daily onslaught of nagmails until this actually gets pushed to prod and I can test it again. Yes, I'm bitter.
docs complete
Mass move from PROD_READY to CLOSED:CURRENTRELEASE