| 1 |
On 27/11/16 10:32, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 06:41:20AM +1100, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 3 |
>> As I am sure everyone is aware by now, stabilisation requests on many |
| 4 |
>> architectures take a long time to be actioned. There are many factors |
| 5 |
>> contributing to this, but today I'd like to address three specific |
| 6 |
>> problems that unnecessarily delay developers actioning those requests.: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> 1. There's no easy way to pick atoms out of a stabilisation bug. |
| 9 |
>> Currently, atoms can appear, in a varying formations, in multiple |
| 10 |
>> locations: in the bug title, spread across multiple comments, in an |
| 11 |
>> attachment, [...]. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> 2. There's no way to determine if a stabilisation request is valid (will |
| 14 |
>> pass repoman) until someone actually tries it. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> 3. There's no easy way to identify the level of testing required for any |
| 17 |
>> given request. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> To address this, I am proposing some changes to Bugzilla, some |
| 20 |
>> automation, and some improved tools. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Bugzilla changes |
| 24 |
>> ================ |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> I'd like to introduce two new fields: |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> 1. "Runtime testing required" - a drop-down list with three values: |
| 29 |
>> * (unset) - the default. The stabilising developer will use |
| 30 |
>> their best judgement as to what testing is required |
| 31 |
>> * Yes - the maintainer is specifically requesting runtime testing |
| 32 |
>> * No - the maintainer is happy to stabilise with only a build |
| 33 |
>> test (for example, trivial revision bumps, libraries with good test |
| 34 |
>> coverage, or otherwise at the maintainer's discretion) |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> 2. "Atoms to stabilise" - a textarea containing a list of fully |
| 37 |
>> qualified atoms. Each atom may optionally be followed by a |
| 38 |
>> whitespace-delimited list of architectures for which that atom should be |
| 39 |
>> stabilised. If an atom is not followed by any list of architectures, it |
| 40 |
>> is assumed it should be stabilised for all architectures CC'd on the bug. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> Example atom list from a bug with amd64, arm, and x86 in CC: |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> =app-foo/bar-1.2.3 # will be stabilised on amd64, arm, and x86 |
| 45 |
>> =app-foo/baz-2.3.4 amd64 x86 # will be stabilised on only amd64 and x86 |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Listing the architectures seems redundant if they are also in the cc: |
| 48 |
> field. In your example above, why would you need arm in the cc: field |
| 49 |
> for app-foo/bas-2.3.4? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
This is to handle the case where multiple packages are stabilised in a |
| 52 |
single bug and each package needs stabilising on a different set of |
| 53 |
architectures. |
Archives