Totally agreed: 2.0 is obviously the priority. I didn't think anyone was talking about a short-term pivot.
On 03/28/2016 10:34 AM, Cheryl Jennings wrote: > Addressing flaky tests is definitely a long term goal we should have. > > Given that we are aiming for beta4 next week, I'd rather our energies > in the short term are directed at fixing stakeholder bugs than fixing > intermittent failures that prevent us from releasing because we are no > longer retrying tests. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com > <mailto:katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com>> wrote: > > While agreeing with the spirit of your email, Cheryl, I'd like to > opine that in the long-term fixing flaky tests will improve the > code and help to fix (and prevent!) bugs. > > Put another way, flaky tests are indirectly causing pain for our > users. > > > On 03/28/2016 10:24 AM, Cheryl Jennings wrote: >> These intermittently failing unit tests are often due to >> unreliable unit tests, rather than problems in the code. As nice >> as it would be to not have to retry tests (particularly unit >> tests), I'd much rather we spend our precious resources on fixing >> bugs that are causing pain for our users. >> >> There are currently 168 Triaged bugs targeted against 2.0-beta4 >> [0], many of which have been reported by actual users and have >> been deferred release after release. For comparison, there are >> 18 go 1.5 /1.6 bugs found by CI. >> >> Thanks, >> -Cheryl >> >> [0] https://launchpad.net/juju-core/+milestone/2.0-beta4 >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Nate Finch >> <nate.fi...@canonical.com <mailto:nate.fi...@canonical.com>> wrote: >> >> +1, don't retry... devs need to feel the pain in order to get >> proper motivation to fix this stuff... >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday >> <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com >> <mailto:katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com>> wrote: >> >> Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved! >> >> On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 >> package in >> > trusty-proposed: >> > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 >> (thanks for the >> > review and copy, Steve). >> > >> > One difference between this and the package I prepared >> earlier is that >> > it does not install /usr/bin/go but rather >> /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin/go so >> > Makefiles and such will need to be adjusted to invoke >> that directly or >> > put /usr/lib/go-1.6/bin on $PATH or whatever. (This >> also means it can >> > be installed alongside the golang packages that are >> already in >> > trusty). >> > >> > Cheers, >> > mwh >> > (Hoping that we can now really properly ignore >> gccgo-4.9 ppc64el bugs!) >> > >> > On 17 February 2016 at 07:58, Michael Hudson-Doyle >> > <michael.hud...@canonical.com >> <mailto:michael.hud...@canonical.com>> wrote: >> >> I have approval for the idea but also decided to wait >> for 1.6 and upload >> >> that instead. I'm also on leave currently so hopefully >> this can all happen >> >> in early March. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> mwh >> >> >> >> On 17/02/2016 1:17 am, "John Meinel" >> <j...@arbash-meinel.com <mailto:j...@arbash-meinel.com>> >> wrote: >> >>> To start with, thanks for working on this. However, >> doesn't this also >> >>> require changing the CI builds to use your ppa? >> >>> >> >>> What is the current state of this? I was just looking >> around and noticed >> >>> golang1.5-go isn't in anything specific for Trusty >> that I can see. I realize >> >>> if its going into an SRU it requires a fair amount of >> negotiation with other >> >>> teams, so I'm not surprised to see it take a while. >> I just wanted to check >> >>> how it was going. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>> John >> >>> =:-> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle >> >>> <michael.hud...@canonical.com >> <mailto:michael.hud...@canonical.com>> wrote: >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> As part of the plan for getting Go 1.5 into trusty >> (see here >> >>>> >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MichaelHudsonDoyle/Go15InTrusty) >> I've built >> >>>> packages (called golang1.5-go rather than golang-go) >> for trusty in my >> >>>> ppa: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> https://launchpad.net/~mwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages >> >> <https://launchpad.net/%7Emwhudson/+archive/ubuntu/go15-trusty/+packages> >> >>>> >> >>>> (assuming 3:1.5.3-0ubuntu4 actually builds... I seem >> to be having a >> >>>> "make stupid packaging mistakes" day) >> >>>> >> >>>> I'll write up a SRU bug to start the process of >> getting this into >> >>>> trusty tomorrow but before it does end up in trusty >> it would seem like >> >>>> a good idea to run the CI tests using juju-core >> packages built with >> >>>> this version of the go compiler. Is that something >> that's feasible to >> >>>> arrange >> >>>> >> >>>> The only packaging requirement should be to change >> the build-depends >> >>>> to be on golang1.5-go rather than golang-go or gccgo. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> mwh >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Juju-dev mailing list >> >>>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com >> <mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com> >> >>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> >>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >> >>> >> >> -- >> - >> Katherine >> >> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >> >> >> -- >> Juju-dev mailing list >> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com> >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >> >> > > -- > - > Katherine > > -- - Katherine
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
