| 1 |
W dniu nie, 07.01.2018 o godzinie 21∶25 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> W dniu sob, 06.01.2018 o godzinie 12∶10 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny |
| 4 |
> napisał: |
| 5 |
> > So I'm thinking of an alternate idea: to start adding staging warnings |
| 6 |
> > for additional profile class, combined with arch restriction. In other |
| 7 |
> > words, change CI from: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > -p stable |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > to: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > -p stable,something -a alpha,amd64,...,mips,... |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > with a separate class for NonSolvableDeps in non-stable profiles (like |
| 16 |
> > repoman's badindev/badinexp) that triggers only a staging-class warning. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > However, this means that: |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > ১. We need to settle for either dev or exp being 'more' supported, |
| 21 |
> > and drop all unsupported profiles to the other group. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > ২. We need to fix the appropriate class of profiles for stable arches |
| 24 |
> > (or move them to the other group). |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > ৩. The arches in question still need to generate reasonably low number |
| 27 |
> > of warnings. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I'd like to follow this with a more precise proposal. Namely, redefine |
| 31 |
> the current profile statuses to apply the following: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are errors, |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> b. exp -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are warnings, |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> c. dev -> developer's playground, not tested. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> This would specifically mean that: |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> 1. Any 'exp' profiles with serious breakage will temporarily be |
| 43 |
> downgraded to 'dev'. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> 2. A 'dev' profile can be upgraded to 'exp' if its scale of depgraph |
| 46 |
> breakage is reasonable (i.e. doesn't clutter the QA report with too many |
| 47 |
> warnings). |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> 3. A 'exp' profile can be upgraded to 'stable' only if it has no |
| 50 |
> depgraph breakages. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Following the explanation from Ulrich Müller, I'm correcting this |
| 54 |
proposal by swapping exp and dev, that is: |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are errors, |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
b. dev -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are warnings, |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
c. exp -> not tested. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
I will post updated patches shortly. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Best regards, |
| 66 |
Michał Górny |
Archives