Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
Hi Thomas, Thomas Goirand (2023-06-27): > Thanks, but I'm not taking it badly. I understand Zhu's point of view, I > just do not agree. It's hard to disagree with facts… > Currently, I haven't seen it just yet, so I can't even have a clear > point of view on what we're talking about. So yeah, it's urgent to ... > wait a little bit. Not quite. The package currently in unstable is RC-buggy, is lacking a binary package, is lacking builds, and is immediate blocker for anything that would get rebuilt against it. It's urgent to fix at least this. And all that is shown in the excuses, so there are no excuses not to do so. And waiting isn't going to change anything because, again as shown in the excuses: arch:all not built yet, autopkgtest delayed So the package is so buggy it's not even getting tested. > FYI, my package was not removed from Experimental because of a newer > version in Unstable. It was auto-decrufted nonetheless with nobody triggering the removal. See https://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt, which you were pointed to by Paul earlier: [Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 19:56:00 -] [ftpmaster: DAK's auto-decrufter] Removed the following packages from experimental: golang-google-grpc | 1.38.0-4 | source golang-google-grpc-dev | 1.38.0-4 | all That doesn't mean anything is erased, you could have just staged -5 into experimental again if you really cared. In any case, the work that every Go maintainer is expected to do doesn't seem to have been done, and that's the number #1 problem. Why and how the package got removed from experimental is just a distraction we don't need. [Also, the -5 package in unstable shows changes dating back from 2022, which is confusing. There's no closing statement for #1026139. That prevents the *fix* to enter testing because the package is considered as *affected* by that bug.] Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois -- Debian Consultant @ DEBAMAX -- https://debamax.com/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On 6/26/23 15:09, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: Y'all should take a break for a day and why don't we come back to this with constructive ways forward? (Both of you :) ) Thanks, but I'm not taking it badly. I understand Zhu's point of view, I just do not agree. Currently, I haven't seen it just yet, so I can't even have a clear point of view on what we're talking about. So yeah, it's urgent to ... wait a little bit. FYI, my package was not removed from Experimental because of a newer version in Unstable. Way forward: fix dependencies... I'll start doing that as soon as I have the results from the excuse page. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
Packages will be removed from experimental if it contains a newer version in unstable (a so called "NVIU" removal). Which is to say if someone uploads to experimental with a fix, and someone else uploads to unstable without that change but a huger version, the experimental package will be removed. https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals has more. We should find a collaborative team wide way forward here. Playing NMU games is not the best way forward here, we're all maintainers together. Y'all should take a break for a day and why don't we come back to this with constructive ways forward? (Both of you :) ) Paul On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:04 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 7:43 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > > On 6/26/23 09:04, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > > Why don't you work on the experimental suite until the major packages > > > have been ready to migrate? > > > > Because I tried to do that, and nobody cared doing the work to fix their > > packages. Last time I uploaded to Experimental, my packages got kicked, > > and my work was reduced to zero. > > > > I have already explained twice on IRC, but you just ignore it. > Nobody can kick packages. > You upload broken packages to experimental, and it FTBFS on buildd. > ftp-master just cleans these NBS semi-automatically. > The removal log is publicly accessible on ftp-master, please check > yourself. > > -- > Shengjing Zhu > >
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
Thanks for your comments. Please take a break for a few hours. Paul On Mon, Jun 26, 2023, 9:15 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:12 PM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:09 PM Paul R. Tagliamonte > wrote: > > > > > > Packages will be removed from experimental if it contains a newer > version in unstable (a so called "NVIU" removal). > > > > > > > The problem with zigo's package is not NVIU. > > Nobody has uploaded any version newer than zigo's version in > experimental. > > Of course except himself. > > -- > Shengjing Zhu >
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:12 PM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:09 PM Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > > > > Packages will be removed from experimental if it contains a newer version > > in unstable (a so called "NVIU" removal). > > > > The problem with zigo's package is not NVIU. > Nobody has uploaded any version newer than zigo's version in experimental. Of course except himself. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:09 PM Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > > Packages will be removed from experimental if it contains a newer version in > unstable (a so called "NVIU" removal). > The problem with zigo's package is not NVIU. Nobody has uploaded any version newer than zigo's version in experimental. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 7:43 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 6/26/23 09:04, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > Why don't you work on the experimental suite until the major packages > > have been ready to migrate? > > Because I tried to do that, and nobody cared doing the work to fix their > packages. Last time I uploaded to Experimental, my packages got kicked, > and my work was reduced to zero. > I have already explained twice on IRC, but you just ignore it. Nobody can kick packages. You upload broken packages to experimental, and it FTBFS on buildd. ftp-master just cleans these NBS semi-automatically. The removal log is publicly accessible on ftp-master, please check yourself. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On 6/26/23 09:04, Shengjing Zhu wrote: Why don't you work on the experimental suite until the major packages have been ready to migrate? Because I tried to do that, and nobody cared doing the work to fix their packages. Last time I uploaded to Experimental, my packages got kicked, and my work was reduced to zero. I'll file the bugs when the autopkgtest show in unstable. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 3:04 PM Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 6/25/23 11:54, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > > Hi zigo, > > > > > > You golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 to unstable, which was experimental > > > previously. > > > It's great to see you want to work on this transition. But I fail to > > > see the following work to make golang-google-grpc migrate to testing. > > > > The page: > > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=golang-google-grpc > > > > shows no issue, apart from #1026139, which I just fixed. Let's see. > > > > I have already told you that there are many regressions which were > shown on the experimental excuse. Since the experimental version has > been cruft, you can't see it now. I pinged you on IRC on the day that > experimental excuse still exists, but you miss that. > Just to be clear, https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=golang-google-grpc show no issue, because it says "autopkgtest delayed". But autopkgtest has been run for the experimental version previously and pseudo-excuses was generated. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Could you keep exploring this transition in experimental? > > No. I would like to see etcd in unstable ASAP, and it's not my intention > to delay my uploads further. If we have problems to fix in other > packages that aren't being addressed, these will be auto-RM at some > point, and that is a good thing. Let's fill RC bugs instead of reverting > this upload. This is not the process for the transition. You should fill RC bugs first then introduce breakages in unstable. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Hi, > > On 6/25/23 11:54, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > Hi zigo, > > > > You golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 to unstable, which was experimental > > previously. > > It's great to see you want to work on this transition. But I fail to > > see the following work to make golang-google-grpc migrate to testing. > > The page: > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=golang-google-grpc > > shows no issue, apart from #1026139, which I just fixed. Let's see. > I have already told you that there are many regressions which were shown on the experimental excuse. Since the experimental version has been cruft, you can't see it now. I pinged you on IRC on the day that experimental excuse still exists, but you miss that. > > Besides, you drop the protoc-gen-go-grpc binary package without any > > explanation. > > I can't remember why I did this. What is this binary for? > It's to generate go grpc bindings. > > Could you keep exploring this transition in experimental? > > No. I would like to see etcd in unstable ASAP, and it's not my intention > to delay my uploads further. If we have problems to fix in other > packages that aren't being addressed, these will be auto-RM at some > point, and that is a good thing. Let's fill RC bugs instead of reverting > this upload. > > > There's > > pseudo regression reports for experimental. > > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1=golang-google-grpc > > Please take a look at this package before uploading to unstable. There > > are many regressions for your golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 upload. (Since > > the version in experimental has been cruft, so the page is blank > > currently). > > Let's fix whatever we see. > Please do not revert this upload. Why don't you work on the experimental suite until the major packages have been ready to migrate? Go packages are sensitive for the unstable suite. If some essential packages can't migrate to testing, they will block other packages from migrating, due to the Built-Using mechanism. For example, if some security releases for packages like docker, podman have been published, these packages will be stuck at unstable. -- Shengjing Zhu
Re: Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
Hi, On 6/25/23 11:54, Shengjing Zhu wrote: Hi zigo, You golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 to unstable, which was experimental previously. It's great to see you want to work on this transition. But I fail to see the following work to make golang-google-grpc migrate to testing. The page: https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=golang-google-grpc shows no issue, apart from #1026139, which I just fixed. Let's see. Besides, you drop the protoc-gen-go-grpc binary package without any explanation. I can't remember why I did this. What is this binary for? Could you keep exploring this transition in experimental? No. I would like to see etcd in unstable ASAP, and it's not my intention to delay my uploads further. If we have problems to fix in other packages that aren't being addressed, these will be auto-RM at some point, and that is a good thing. Let's fill RC bugs instead of reverting this upload. There's pseudo regression reports for experimental. https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1=golang-google-grpc Please take a look at this package before uploading to unstable. There are many regressions for your golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 upload. (Since the version in experimental has been cruft, so the page is blank currently). Let's fix whatever we see. Please do not revert this upload. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Intend to revert golang-google-grpc in unstable
Hi zigo, You golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 to unstable, which was experimental previously. It's great to see you want to work on this transition. But I fail to see the following work to make golang-google-grpc migrate to testing. Besides, you drop the protoc-gen-go-grpc binary package without any explanation. Could you keep exploring this transition in experimental? There's pseudo regression reports for experimental. https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1=golang-google-grpc Please take a look at this package before uploading to unstable. There are many regressions for your golang-google-grpc 1.38.0 upload. (Since the version in experimental has been cruft, so the page is blank currently). -- Shengjing Zhu
