Hi Vincent, Thanks for pointing out the point of view from a patchbot maintainer, my statement "I think a complete burden is highly exaggerated" was made from my perspective as a developer not knowing how this looks from a patchbot maintainer point of view. And I can see that having to deal with this every release instead of just when you are taking time to write or review tickets can be a complete burden. I think we should try to find a solution that makes both developers and patchbot mainainers happy. Any solution that would make people who volunteer to run a patchbot stop doing so because it creates a to high burden is clearly no solution.
On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 18:43:00 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > Hi Marteen, > > "complete burden" = "each release". So precisely, we need somebody to > volunteer to maintain this list. I already hardly find the energy to > fill a ticket for the reasons why my patchbot is not working any more at > each new release (including the fact that I need to search for a > reason). In case I know the problem, I just send an e-mail on > sage-release and in case I find the answer (or somebody finds it) I > disable explicitely the package on my patchbot. Here is the list of 11 > broken optional packages on quasar > > # deformation: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/gEFC-ZwtAGU > # normaliz: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23586 > # giac: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/QMfm3NOBZaI > # polytopes_db: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/KI0qtg1kYoA > # cbc: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22006 > # gap_packages, database_gap: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22576 > # qepcad: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22851 > # database_cremona_ellcurve: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23840 > # libtheora?? > # sip: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/Jc-5u9YslkI > # openblas is not used anywhere > > Though in an ideal world > - tickets should not be merged if any patchbot is not happy with it > - patchbot should also be identified with its set of optional packages > installed (for now the server does not make any distinction) > - patchbot should test tickets upgrading an optional package > > Best > Vincent > > PS: thank you for willing to work on this. People do not seem to care so > much about failing doctests due to installation of optional packages. > > On 12/09/2017 18:28, Maarten Derickx wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > > > I think "a complete burden" is highly exaggerated, there should not be a > > new patchbot ticket to often. And if someone has to create a ticket then > > just copy pasting the failing files and the ticket number to the ticket > > description should not be to much work. > > > > As for removing old stuff I am totally happy to volunteer as a > maintainer > > of the ticket so that failures for old beta's and other releases are > > removed from time to time. > > > > The ticket also has some benefits, namely you see a nice overview of all > > the files affected, so this will make checking wether the files for > which > > you currently have a patchbot failing way faster then clicking on all > the > > results of a trac query. > > > > As a summary your solution would make writing new tickets easier, and > the > > current solution makes checking wether a ticket exists easier. Since the > > latter will happen way more often I think the benefits outweigh the > costs. > > > > On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 15:34:11 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think a meta-ticket is a complete burden to maintain. And as already > >> said in other mails, this identification should be done by other means. > >> > >> Vincent > >> > >> On 11/09/2017 18:59, Maarten Derickx wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> During the recent writing of new code and reviewing I got annoyed that > >> it > >>> costs really a lot of effort for me to see if there was already a > ticket > >>> for a certain patchbot failure. I therefore decided to create a > >> metaticket > >>> that should serve as an overview of all currently known patchbot > >> failures. > >>> It can be found here: > >>> > >>> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23832 > >>> > >>> I think that all patchbot failure tickets should automatically deserve > >> the > >>> status critical. Since patchbot failures make sage development and > >>> reviewing way more troublesome. Are there any other people with an > >> opinion > >>> on this? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Maarten > >>> > >>> p.s. Tips on how to search for tickets on trac are welcome! > >>> > >> > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
