Maxime Devos <[email protected]> writes: >> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every 7 >> days, and remove a package if it still fail to build in 90 days? > > The first part looks reasonable to me (though I would decrease 7 days > to daily or even hourly, as I don't see a point in the delay), but how > does the second part (removing packages) make sense at all? >
Oh, to be more clear I didn't mean automatically remove a package, but notify guix-devel to consider removing one if its "fail to build" issue had existed for a long time and no one care. > [...] > > Instead, what about: > >> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every >> hour, and revert the commit(s) causing the new build failures if they >> haven't been fixed in a week. Yes, automatically report bugs would be helpful. And I'll leave the reverting rights to committers, which usually need some research and maybe risky. > [...] > Expanding upon this a bit more: > > * Expecting that people fix build failures of X when updating X seems > reasonable to me, and I think this is not in dispute. > > * Expecting that people using X fix build failures of X or risk the > package X being deleted when someone else changed a dependency Y of > X seems unreasonable to me. More generally, I am categorically > opposed to: > > ‘If you change something and it breaks something else, you should > leave fixing the something else to someone (unless you want to > fix it yourself).’ > > (I can think of some situations where this is a good thing, but not > in general and in particular not in this Guix situation.) > > I mean, I don't know about you, but for me it fails the categorical > imperative and the so-called Golden Rule. I agree. Well sometimes if breaks are overlooked by me, then it's very welcome for other to give me a hand. Thanks.
