Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:42 -0600, Jason Wever wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OK, let's review this again. If you cannot test a given ebuild on a given arch, then don't touch that arch's keyword (unless you need to remove it for broken dependencies). If you can test for a given arch and are not part of that arch team, please please please let the arch teams know that before you go around keywording things arbitrarily. It makes the baby Jesus cry when you don't and really isn't the greatest from a QA perspective either. Sorry folks this was my fault. I've sent my grovelling apology to the sparc team. Hopefully they'll accept my apologies and put my digressions down to me being a new dev. :-) Actually I did do fairly thorough testing / QA but I didn't tell the arch team before keywording (bad me!). In case anyone is interested; this is about the Haskell packages which I hope to get up to scratch on sparc (with the consent and approval of the sparc team in future!) Duncan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
On Friday 20 May 2005 02:53 pm, Duncan Coutts wrote: Sorry folks this was my fault. ah, good to know ... thought it might have been my binutils-2.16 ~sparc marking, but i guess that's somewhat sane since Weeve gave it a quick run and it seems to be OK thus far ... -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 20 May 2005, Duncan Coutts wrote: Sorry folks this was my fault. I've sent my grovelling apology to the sparc team. Hopefully they'll accept my apologies and put my digressions down to me being a new dev. :-) You can only take some of the credit Duncan, but not all of it :) Every once and a while it seems a reminder such as this is needed as people tend to start playing with package keywords when they shouldn't be. It's kind of like guarding the cookie jar, you can't ever let your guard down, even if you cut off everyone else's hands. I try not to point fingers or name names since it's not something I like done to myself. I'd also like to think that this gives such guilty parties a better understanding of why the arch teams (and especially SPARC) can be so maniacal about this sometimes, in hopes that it will lessen and/or prevent this problem in the future. From my perspective, if a package maintainer asks for testing and the ability to keyword (i.e. Spanky asking me if it was OK to bump binutils to 2.16, to which I said yes) then that is fine. However adding or changing keywords in an ebuild for which you cannot test (regardless of how trivial the changes are or how portable the programming language of said package is supposed to be) is really where I'm looking at here. For some odd reason, trying to ensure QA (even in the nicest of fashions) seems to result in a majority of less than positive responses. Even recently I've had a developer get quite confrontational with me over email when I nicely asked him not to stabilize packages for which he could not test (even if the changes were supposedly trivial). History has shown that we cannot depend on assuming that trivial changes for me == works for you if we want to have some level of Q in QA. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCjkP3dKvgdVioq28RAqw+AJ9yuqHTVZSsdnfyFt9PgJSm3jt+2QCdEjwE TS+flVWEr60GwuMEdWIqV/g= =xrIF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
Jason Wever wrote: snip From my perspective, if a package maintainer asks for testing and the ability to keyword (i.e. Spanky asking me if it was OK to bump binutils to 2.16, to which I said yes) then that is fine. However adding or changing keywords in an ebuild for which you cannot test (regardless of how trivial the changes are or how portable the programming language of said package is supposed to be) is really where I'm looking at here. Wouldn't it be better from a QA perspective to go back to the (really) old policy of dropping anything you can't test on. I know that puts more work on you guys, but this is only going to get worse as we get more devs. Wouldn't it be better to nip this in the bud now. Maybe broaden the arch teams by giving some devs access to remote boxes. --Or-- Get every dev access to all the supported arches (some of this could probably be done with emulators of some sort, qemu or somesuch). Make them test on every arch before they change any keywords. --Iggy For some odd reason, trying to ensure QA (even in the nicest of fashions) seems to result in a majority of less than positive responses. Even recently I've had a developer get quite confrontational with me over email when I nicely asked him not to stabilize packages for which he could not test (even if the changes were supposedly trivial). History has shown that we cannot depend on assuming that trivial changes for me == works for you if we want to have some level of Q in QA. Cheers, - -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:51:51 -0500 Brian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Wouldn't it be better from a QA perspective to go back to the (really) | old policy of dropping anything you can't test on. I know that puts | more work on you guys, but this is only going to get worse as we get | more devs. Wouldn't it be better to nip this in the bud now. Maybe | broaden the arch teams by giving some devs access to remote boxes. Not really. Dropping to ~arch when bumping works well. Sure, ~arch does occasionally end up broken, but it's better than us lagging behind massively. There're too many packages and not enough people these days... The assumption is, if foo-1.2 works on, say, sparc, then foo-1.3 probably will too to the extent that we're happy for it to go to ~sparc. On the other hand, we're *not* confident enough in upstreams' abilities to always put out perfect releases that we're prepared to move things to stable without explicit testing. See, we *really* don't want arch to get broken. We'd rather ~arch didn't break either, of course, but taking the occasional hit there is acceptable if it lets us keep everything up to date. | Get every dev access to all the supported arches (some of this could | probably be done with emulators of some sort, qemu or somesuch). Make | them test on every arch before they change any keywords. Not gonna happen. Emulators don't cut it and won't find all the problems (but they will find a load of other bogus non-issues). Plus, from experience I'd say that at least half our devs wouldn't have a clue where to start when doing arch testing... Then there's the issue of most alt-archs having far higher QA standards than x86 anyway, and us not wanting to sink to what x86 considers acceptable for marking stable. From experience -- the current policy as it is now *works*, so long as everyone follows it. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgp2HGtPZzQ6m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 22:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Not gonna happen. Emulators don't cut it and won't find all the problems (but they will find a load of other bogus non-issues). Plus, from experience I'd say that at least half our devs wouldn't have a clue where to start when doing arch testing... Add this HOWTO arch test to your developer docs. Very nice by the way. Then there's the issue of most alt-archs having far higher QA standards than x86 anyway, and us not wanting to sink to what x86 considers acceptable for marking stable. From experience -- the current policy as it is now *works*, so long as everyone follows it. And as long as ciaranm, or someone from a non x86 arch bitches once a month here. -- Tom Wesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywording, for the umpteenth time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Cummings wrote: It's a nice idea (I know I recently opened negotiations up with the mips team for access so I could close some of my open bugs against them), but the two problems I can see with this are: remote access tends to mean you can't test any X related properly (shoot, I have a sparc sitting next to me headless, but being headless I never broach the gui related sparc stuff) You might like to try Xvfb, Xvnc, etc., perhaps over nomachine if your network connection isn't too quick and you actually want to see the app. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCjn4NXVaO67S1rtsRAnWNAKDC1NJACSqtPg8zoqHouZdSDAs3IQCfYgJa UwbAeXV9Lnckq0CBZAIBLwQ= =1jAq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
