1 |
On 01/27/2017 07:41 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> I should point out that: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> 1) CI is detecting this kind of issues much faster than you are, |
8 |
>>> and reporting them both to the committer and to a *dedicated* mailing |
9 |
>>> list, so your mail is completely redundant and delayed. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> That sounds like a somewhat better solution, although sometimes it can |
12 |
>> make sense to send email to where the developers are already, rather |
13 |
>> than putting the onus on them to join a separate mailing list. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I don't think the idea is to put the onus on people to join a separate |
17 |
> list so much as to give people the freedom to NOT join that list. |
18 |
|
19 |
Hey thanks guys for pointing out that list concerned with CI. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Why is it necessary to notify every developer that somebody has not |
22 |
> run repoman? For everybody who does what they're supposed to do, |
23 |
> there is no lesson to learn, and it is just noise. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> For people interested in building tree-wide QA tools or who are |
26 |
> interested in overall trends, then they can mine the list archives. |
27 |
> If they have significant observations they can always post here or on |
28 |
> planet or whatever, and that would have a much higher S/N ratio. |
29 |
> |
30 |
>>> 2) Spamming the developer mailing list is completely unprofessional |
31 |
>>> here. If you are unhappy about those mails, just disable them, and stop |
32 |
>>> blaming people for your misery. Trying to prove others incompetent |
33 |
>>> helps nobody. |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> Come on... I think it's fair game to share news about people breaking |
36 |
>> things on the gentoo-dev mailing list. Naming & shaming can be useful |
37 |
>> sometimes. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> I think naming and shaming is a short-term game. It might have |
40 |
> immediate effects, but it tends to create a culture where nobody wants |
41 |
> to get involved, because they don't want to be the person getting |
42 |
> named and shamed. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> We should certainly provide information to people about their errors |
45 |
> so that they can fix them. We should certainly have this information |
46 |
> available to people making tools that can help people avoid errors, |
47 |
> since error is human nature. There is no need to hide this |
48 |
> information, but we shouldn't have a culture where we're making it an |
49 |
> emphasis so that we can all go around pointing fingers. |
50 |
|
51 |
Hmmmm. Sure I agree that folks with aspiring skills, particular to |
52 |
gentoo, might need a bit of coddling and encouragement at times, as |
53 |
opposed to the back of the hand sort of management. Me, I'm rather |
54 |
thick-skinned, so a good public 'smacking' only means a dev cares and |
55 |
has higher expectations from his comrade? But, what comes around, goes |
56 |
around for this old fart..... Kids now-a-days, not so much. |
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
I have avoided the gentoo-CI project (building my own server-cluster) |
60 |
pretty much for the reason to avoid this sort of thread focused on |
61 |
myself (an ounce of prevention). My take is that this thread is |
62 |
justification that the gentoo-CI project needs more documentation, |
63 |
participation and dissemination so as to make it a community tool for |
64 |
devs and strong users alike. In fact, could not repoman be an option for |
65 |
a gentoo-cluster-CI configuration? |
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
> If somebody is a consistent problem and is impervious to attempts to |
69 |
> work with them (whatever the ultimate reason), we don't need to make |
70 |
> them a social pariah until they decide to quit. We just need to have |
71 |
> QA revoke their commit rights. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> I'm a little concerned that stuff like this starts to end up working |
74 |
> like collective punishment. Fred over here broke the tree, so nobody |
75 |
> gets to have desert or recess today; you all know what to do with Fred |
76 |
> when he's looking to sit next to somebody at lunch and when the bus |
77 |
> drops you off at home later today. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> I don't think that was the original motivation; I think frustration |
80 |
> with this being a frequent problem is more the issue and is quite |
81 |
> understandable. I just don't think this is the right solution. |
82 |
|
83 |
|
84 |
I have posted several times (I think) about the Gentoo CI being tuned |
85 |
into a straight forward project, where anyone with a few systems (or VMs |
86 |
or containers) can build a gentoo cluster and run it local. Folks, |
87 |
whether dev or experience user, could then run their own |
88 |
"gentoo-cluster-CI" leveraging the work of the devs involved and then |
89 |
selecting packages that they care most about. Automating much of what a |
90 |
proxy-dev does noting the results and studying the components, would |
91 |
make an excellent training system and help infuse folks with gentoo |
92 |
expertise into the wider software intensive industries. Thus it would |
93 |
greatly enhance gentoo's appeal and tend to subsequently attract younger |
94 |
folks with aspirations, imho. |
95 |
|
96 |
|
97 |
This thread only reinforces that this idea, to make a gentoo-cluster-CI |
98 |
better documented and available for all of us with an interest. Granted, |
99 |
I'm still waiting a bit more to attempt that sort effort; but I do |
100 |
believe there would be strong interest, particularly if packaged up as |
101 |
stage-4 for the user base, proxy folks and those with not quite dev |
102 |
level skills. I also realize the gentoo-CI project may not quite be |
103 |
ready for this level of promotion, but, I am anxiously awaiting that |
104 |
possibility. |
105 |
|
106 |
|
107 |
|
108 |
hth, |
109 |
James |