| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/06/2015 06:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> Hello, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> As you have seen multiple times, I'm running a minimalistic CI |
| 8 |
> service for Gentoo that checks the repository for major issues |
| 9 |
> using pkgcheck. So far it's automation is limited to sending a mail |
| 10 |
> to dedicated gentoo-automated-testing@l.g.o mailing list |
| 11 |
> on breakage changes. From there, I compare the results to recent |
| 12 |
> git log and mail the developers at fault, pointing out the bad |
| 13 |
> commit. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> A few developers have already subscribed to the mailing list to |
| 16 |
> check if they haven't caused any new breakages and fix them |
| 17 |
> quickly. For others, it's pretty much just me caring to check, |
| 18 |
> which also means that when I'm not around things are left broken. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Automating the blaming process has been suggested multiple times |
| 21 |
> already but I so far considered it not worth the effort. Mostly |
| 22 |
> because many of the issues are indirect, and trying to |
| 23 |
> automatically figure them out from combination of the pkgcheck |
| 24 |
> report and recent commits would be hard, and could cause false |
| 25 |
> positives. For example, some of the depgraph breakages happen |
| 26 |
> because of package.mask changes -- figuring that out automatically |
| 27 |
> wouldn't be easy, and the script could blame an irrelevant commit |
| 28 |
> in the package. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> However, it was suggested recently that I could make it mail the |
| 31 |
> maintainers of the affected packages. Even though most often it's |
| 32 |
> not them who are at fault, it was suggested that they'd prefer to |
| 33 |
> know that their packages are broken. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> So what do you think? Would it be fine to mail the package |
| 36 |
> maintainers whenever their packages break? Would it be a problem if |
| 37 |
> I just CC-ed all the maintainers on the gentoo-automated-testing |
| 38 |
> mails? Please note that the breakages are catched per-package, and |
| 39 |
> the script wouldn't be able to respect restrict="" or hand-written |
| 40 |
> maintainer descriptions ;-). |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Sounds fine to me. It's annoying when I come across something that |
| 44 |
breaks my deptree, and I don't want my packages to break things, |
| 45 |
either. No complaints here, as long as it's clear what the screw-up is. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
- -- |
| 48 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 49 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 50 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
| 51 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 52 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWZytdAAoJEAEkDpRQOeFwx10P/1/AaiYBvw67kiFCnQSQ/K89 |
| 55 |
aHdkwI9KCmVSriBv3lRUMYhR9u48NdwwNPj1X+qlYP9hkFLgE2YEnnDeeegr4EtS |
| 56 |
YgqTDuxwrWFzPRX/s8n199drlt5Y71S7B3LBDnOWRZcVOQlqjoLqdPN/FLmfi/Gh |
| 57 |
57jCBcCn1nUx9SchidDXLa3xW9Yy0D3UPavIYKknmakVtMTnSx0qfsq2pIc15dp8 |
| 58 |
k2/m40a2UEitdn8sJKVJpqILs5l/1hGPJhtDkcRtYaHnVq7hVb9ibV7jKC2F/sZh |
| 59 |
TgdWhc4VmghpCCZ4ZCXESQa8C3ISCIHp6m1OU9OHYPYfLabQRdHmi9GIgdt0Jyex |
| 60 |
UJQzIhEeEatjkYIUwdFJsPYVJ93dOI/Ekymt4UjZR9Ww+LX/HilrH4AXZTTJsX9e |
| 61 |
C5bvTnFy0OmSP1/t0IRZ63DWgrphxTZuviP3l8g9fLBZOY9bebeqixtGFpnw9ua+ |
| 62 |
WYHavsm3ExknYEcSYJi6wLKqYnkM5mK3eK0z85mZ6ONcRsydvBo2lbhzrRpNG8xk |
| 63 |
uGrTFHirRVMTmJNWCd0e9pJ26xD7OvKTWMIxp+R+J4xHNe9j20keVFtHevkDJBWG |
| 64 |
Qj/lzmFANczg7gW+X0CLKdrlzSI+KB0HMOeJO4+FIn/vgJtUOucrndhEM+jtqL1O |
| 65 |
iBRPvpMGZDKFtIjSUii2 |
| 66 |
=PbDc |
| 67 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives