Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Christopher Baines writes:
[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
Hey!
After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently,
the
bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back
submitting
builds for packages changed by patches.
QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues)
as having
been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can
do this
via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as
reviewed") on
the page for each issue to help you do this.
I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no
burden
on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review
your
own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think
the
changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue
accordingly.
When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display
them in
dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those
with
commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging
the
patches if indeed they are ready.
Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
Wanted to check things out, but it’s giving the same error message
on every page:
An error occurred
Sorry about that!
misc-error
#fvector->list: expected vector, got ~S#f#f
Also, the certificate for issues.guix.gnu.org expired today.
Is there a plan to improve the reliability Guix infrastructure?
It seems like major things break with alarming regularity.
— Ian
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:08:45PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR: > I’m "reviewing" `[bug#68997] gnu: lightning: Update to 2.2.3`… please > find another one! Now that you jump to complicated and not even yet built by QA packages, you are safe from my competition :) Andreas
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Vivien Kraus writes: > Hello Chris, > > Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +, Christopher Baines a écrit : >> Let me know if you have any comments or questions! > > Thank you for all your work on QA. > > I can’t help but notice QA is missing a few patches. For instance, > issues.guix.gnu.org lists 7 open issues with patches for gnome-team > (#67623, #67493, #67273, #6648, #68937, #68716, #68911) but if I search > for gnome-team on qa.guix.gnu.org, it only shows 2: #68937 and #68716. > Do you know why the others were lost? QA only looks at a fixed number of recent issues (by the time the latest patches were sent). This is mostly a disk space and memory limitation on beid which runs data.qa.guix.gnu.org, so hopefully we can get more resources and increase the number of issues to look at signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Vivien Kraus writes: > Dear QA wizards, > > Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +, Christopher Baines a écrit : >> You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your >> own patches) > > I interpret this as it’s OK to review patches if you asked for a change > in the thread, am I correct? Or is this too much involvement? That sounds fine. It's more you shouldn't review your own patches or someone elses patches where you were significantly involved in the work. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hello Chris, Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +, Christopher Baines a écrit : > Let me know if you have any comments or questions! Thank you for all your work on QA. I can’t help but notice QA is missing a few patches. For instance, issues.guix.gnu.org lists 7 open issues with patches for gnome-team (#67623, #67493, #67273, #6648, #68937, #68716, #68911) but if I search for gnome-team on qa.guix.gnu.org, it only shows 2: #68937 and #68716. Do you know why the others were lost? Best regards, Vivien
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Dear QA wizards, Le vendredi 09 février 2024 à 10:44 +, Christopher Baines a écrit : > You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your > own patches) I interpret this as it’s OK to review patches if you asked for a change in the thread, am I correct? Or is this too much involvement? Best regards, Vivien
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Andreas Enge writes: > I see a few "Failed to process revision", for instance here: >https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/68778 > While I am not sure why, these look like transient (?) build failures, > at least failures not related to the patch in question. What is there to do? Long term it would be nice for Guile to segfault less, in the short term though sending the patch again will trigger the data service to try again. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Quoting Andreas Enge (2024-02-09 15:30:44) > Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:53:59PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR: > > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25) > > > Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > > > > Can I safely close it?! > > > > > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication > > > of effort and the original patch got ignored. > > > > > > It looks like the issue has been closed now. > > Not me! > > As the old German saying goes, "two idiots, one idea" :-) > I also immediately jumped to this easy looking patch, came to the same > conclusion as you and closed it. This is a lot of review work for a patch > where there is nothing to do... > > Actually the next patch I tried to apply was also already there, and the > committer had just forgotten to close the issue. *erf*… people! I’m "reviewing" `[bug#68997] gnu: lightning: Update to 2.2.3`… please find another one! -- Tanguy
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hello, I see a few "Failed to process revision", for instance here: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/68778 While I am not sure why, these look like transient (?) build failures, at least failures not related to the patch in question. What is there to do? Andreas
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:53:59PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR: > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25) > > Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > > > Can I safely close it?! > > > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication > > of effort and the original patch got ignored. > > > > It looks like the issue has been closed now. > Not me! As the old German saying goes, "two idiots, one idea" :-) I also immediately jumped to this easy looking patch, came to the same conclusion as you and closed it. This is a lot of review work for a patch where there is nothing to do... Actually the next patch I tried to apply was also already there, and the committer had just forgotten to close the issue. Andreas
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25) > Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > > Can I safely close it?! > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication > of effort and the original patch got ignored. > > It looks like the issue has been closed now. Not me! Regards. -- Tanguy
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > Hi Chris, > > First of, thanks (again) for everything that you’ve done with QA! > It looks great! > > > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 11:44:11) >> Let me know if you have any comments or questions! > > Unfortunately, I have some (stupid) questions! > > I decided to give it a try and I picked at random a patch that > was supposed to be an easy one: > > ``` > [bug#68590] gnu: notmuch: update to version 0.38.2 > ``` > > It’s mark as "green" *ie* important checks passing, but… > it does not even apply?! Actually, it’s for a good reason: > the exact same patch has been applied 2 weeks ago by > Nicolas Goaziou as #9b65b60b97. > > The patch is still open on Debbugs. I guess it should be closed, right? > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68590 > > I guess it got is "green" status on QA before other patch made it to > master. > > Can I safely close it?! Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication of effort and the original patch got ignored. It looks like the issue has been closed now. QA can spot when patches don't apply, but it doesn't test for that regularly at the moment. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hi Chris, First of, thanks (again) for everything that you’ve done with QA! It looks great! Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 11:44:11) > Let me know if you have any comments or questions! Unfortunately, I have some (stupid) questions! I decided to give it a try and I picked at random a patch that was supposed to be an easy one: ``` [bug#68590] gnu: notmuch: update to version 0.38.2 ``` It’s mark as "green" *ie* important checks passing, but… it does not even apply?! Actually, it’s for a good reason: the exact same patch has been applied 2 weeks ago by Nicolas Goaziou as #9b65b60b97. The patch is still open on Debbugs. I guess it should be closed, right? https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68590 I guess it got is "green" status on QA before other patch made it to master. Can I safely close it?! Regards. -- Tanguy
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
On Fri, Feb 09 2024, Christopher Baines wrote:
> After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, the
> bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back submitting
> builds for packages changed by patches.
>
> QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) as having
> been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can do this
> via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as reviewed") on
> the page for each issue to help you do this.
>
> I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no burden
> on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
> knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
> own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
> questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think the
> changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue accordingly.
>
> When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display them in
> dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those with
> commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging the
> patches if indeed they are ready.
>
> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
This is great, thank you.
QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hey!
After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, the
bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back submitting
builds for packages changed by patches.
QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) as having
been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can do this
via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as reviewed") on
the page for each issue to help you do this.
I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no burden
on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think the
changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue accordingly.
When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display them in
dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those with
commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging the
patches if indeed they are ready.
Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
Thanks,
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
