1 |
El dom, 14-08-2016 a las 23:35 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand escribió: |
2 |
> During the latest Council meeting it was determined to set up a new |
3 |
> Working Group to come up with recommendations for improving the state |
4 |
> of |
5 |
> the stable tree at a later Council meeting. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is |
8 |
> * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the |
9 |
> fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists |
10 |
> for |
11 |
> this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. |
12 |
> Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED |
13 |
> NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize |
14 |
> developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
Yes. For example, currently, most gnome bugs are not major enough to |
18 |
need a fast stabilization and, then, we wait for the next round of |
19 |
stabilizations instead of filling one new bug per package. We, of |
20 |
course, do exceptions when the bug is major enough. |
21 |
|
22 |
Then, the old workflow of allowing to close the bugs even when only |
23 |
fixed in testing was working fine for us, and also allows us to have a |
24 |
more "tidy" bug list (as our bug list is huge sometimes) and focus on |
25 |
the really remaining bug reports. |
26 |
|
27 |
There are also many cases of long standing bugs that we want, on |
28 |
purpose, to be fixed in testing and wait for the full period (for |
29 |
example, I remember a last change in glib that we wanted it to wait for |
30 |
a full "major version bump" period, then, keeping the bug opened until |
31 |
that new version is stabilized with all the other related packages is |
32 |
not useful at all). |
33 |
|
34 |
Also, another drawback is that I would need to manually check, again, |
35 |
all the opened bug reports assigned to us and *related to many |
36 |
different packages* once the stabilization finishes (sometimes many |
37 |
months later)... and that is adding ever more work without any clear |
38 |
advantage to me. |
39 |
|
40 |
Another issues that comes to my mind is that, if I don't misremember, |
41 |
there were in the past some scripts that allowed us to fill automatic |
42 |
stabilization for reports to help maintainers to remember to stabilize |
43 |
things. That scripts were filling the bugs only when no bug report was |
44 |
opened for the relevant packages... then, they will break, and since |
45 |
they were the only thing "near automatic" for trying to remember to |
46 |
stabilize things... paradoxically this change will cause the |
47 |
stabilizations to be even more "manual" and, hence, probably even |
48 |
slower, as they will depend on the maintainer being active enough. |
49 |
|
50 |
I am not sure if, maybe, it would be feasible to add a button to |
51 |
bugzilla to create a stabilization bug from another one. I am thinking |
52 |
in something similar of our "Clone bug" feature. Maybe that would be |
53 |
adapted to create a new bug report based on existing one for taking the |
54 |
package name for the summary, appending the STABLEREQ keyword and... |
55 |
|
56 |
That way, we could still close the bug report when fixed (even in |
57 |
testing) while having the stable bug report around to allow us to |
58 |
remember that is still pending. |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
> * Are there ways to reduce the stabilization lag of packages |
62 |
> - looking into the effectiveness of ALLARCHES and its use |
63 |
> - possibility for maintainer to stabilize packages themselves |
64 |
> for |
65 |
> architectures they have access to (including whether there |
66 |
> might |
67 |
> be a need for changes to gentoo infrastructure to facilitate |
68 |
> this) |
69 |
|
70 |
Thinking about the way I think most stabilization teams are handling |
71 |
the bunch stabilizations, I think the best think to do is that the |
72 |
maintainer itself goes ahead stabilizing on remaining arches as soon as |
73 |
the first one does the job. |
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
> - Tinderboxing / Automatic tools build test packages and reverse |
77 |
> dependencies in order to assist in stabilization |
78 |
|
79 |
Well, Toralf is really doing a nice job helping us with tinderbox, but |
80 |
I am unsure if that process is automatic enough to allow like one |
81 |
tinderbox per stabilization bug and if he has the resources to make it |
82 |
fast enough :/ |
83 |
|
84 |
> |
85 |
> Other suggestions are up to the WG to come up with and write up a |
86 |
> final |
87 |
> report to the council with the summary of these discussions. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> I've volunteered to chair such as working group. If you want to |
90 |
> participate in it please respond to this thread. Additionally I've |
91 |
> set |
92 |
> up #gentoo-wg-stable as a place of coordination. |
93 |
> |
94 |
|
95 |
I am not sure if one suggestion I did a few days ago was included (as |
96 |
the thread was already really long when I was able to reply sorry), if |
97 |
that is not the case, it was: |
98 |
My suggestion, for now would be to modify a bit the current policy: if |
99 |
I don't misremember, we can drop stable keywords for arches that are |
100 |
not stabilizing the package in 90 days. The problem is that it |
101 |
currently cannot be done in most of the times because it's not feasible |
102 |
for the maintainer to drop the keyword and *also* all the stable |
103 |
keywords of reverse deps. |
104 |
|
105 |
Hence, I would suggest to, apart of allowing the maintainers to drop |
106 |
the keywords, to also allow them to stabilize that packages on that |
107 |
arches when this timeout has expired |
108 |
|
109 |
Thanks! |