| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 07:23:33PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:16 PM Sam James <sam@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > > On 7 Nov 2022, at 06:07, Oskari Pirhonen <xxc3ncoredxx@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:37:24 +0100, Piotr Karbowski wrote: |
| 7 |
> > >> I would be in favour of stepping up the social contract and actually |
| 8 |
> > >> prohibiting this kind of things, we had that before too, the nattka you |
| 9 |
> > >> mgorny wrote is replacement for old bugzilla bot that was ... |
| 10 |
> > >> closedsource and perished, though nattka now have way more features than |
| 11 |
> > >> the old thing ever had. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > As a user, I think it would be really cool if there was a requirement |
| 14 |
> > > that all infra and infra-adjacent stuff was free software. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > I feel like I've read that Debian already has something like this. While |
| 17 |
> > > doing some quick searches I didn't find a full-on requirement, but all |
| 18 |
> > > their infra bits I did find were powered by free software. The most |
| 19 |
> > > relevant ones being buildd [1] and debci [2]. Additionally, the debci |
| 20 |
> > > docs has inctructions on reproducing tests yourself [3] which is a nice |
| 21 |
> > > extra IMO. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Gentoo has https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I feel like something like a dev-run tinderbox is a bit out of the |
| 26 |
> scope of that. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Suppose I file a bug against a package, pointing out some issue in it. |
| 29 |
> How do you know I didn't use some proprietary static code analysis |
| 30 |
> tool to discover that error? Does it even really matter? The bug |
| 31 |
> speaks for itself. It is like worrying about whether somebody who |
| 32 |
> filed a bug was running Windows or another proprietary OS or browser |
| 33 |
> on their desktop. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Well, a tinderbox is just an automated process for doing just that. |
| 36 |
> We don't require any dev to use a proprietary tinderbox before |
| 37 |
> committing. It is something that individual devs choose to use for |
| 38 |
> themselves, automating the testing workflow and possibly the |
| 39 |
> submission of bugs. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> I think the key is something that was brought up earlier in the |
| 42 |
> thread: is this causing problems? If somebody is running some tool |
| 43 |
> against the repository and automatically filing bugs, and those bugs |
| 44 |
> are not useful/actionable and waste the time of volunteers, then that |
| 45 |
> is a problem. Proprietary tools do contribute to this since they can |
| 46 |
> generate results that are harder to reproduce, but if they are clear |
| 47 |
> and accurate and actionable it could still be a net-positive. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
In some cases, yes, this is exactly the problem. This was one of the |
| 50 |
bugs reported in the now-deleted issue tracking repository on Github. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> Of course if somebody wants to contribute to 100% FOSS tinderbox |
| 53 |
> efforts that would be even better. Perhaps if our 100% FOSS tinderbox |
| 54 |
> efforts addressed our needs very well, then nobody would want to |
| 55 |
> bother with the proprietary reports, or generating them. IMO it would |
| 56 |
> be better to create the FOSS solution before abandoning the |
| 57 |
> proprietary one. Doing otherwise is basically burning bridges - it |
| 58 |
> can be motivating in a sense but not really ideal. I'd love to have a |
| 59 |
> 100% FOSS solution around all of this, but I appreciate what has been |
| 60 |
> created and can hardly criticize volunteers for failing to make it |
| 61 |
> happen, especially since I haven't contributed to that myself. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> -- |
| 64 |
> Rich |
| 65 |
> |
Archives