1 |
Sorry about a long delay responding, I ended up being offline until the |
2 |
end of last week and I've had quite a lot of catching up. |
3 |
|
4 |
Anyway, let me begin by addressing a sentiment expressed independently |
5 |
in several responses and which could be summarised as "just come and |
6 |
help". A laudable idea in theory - except as a project run entirely by |
7 |
unpaid volunteers, we can neither hire more people nor demand that |
8 |
developers work on more things than they already do. It might sound |
9 |
harsh but if working in particle physics (which like most public-sector |
10 |
research suffers from chronic shortage of manpower comparing to the |
11 |
amount of things to do, and which is nowadays based primarily on |
12 |
large-scale collaborations whose leadership has only minimal authority |
13 |
over individual participants) has taught me anything, it's that it is |
14 |
better to do a good job at two things than a mediocre one at ten. |
15 |
|
16 |
Moving on to specific comments: |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
On 18/10/2021 01:50, Sam James wrote: |
20 |
|
21 |
> - Most failures found via arch testing _aren't_ arch-specific, but |
22 |
they serve as a useful quality check. That is, |
23 |
> usually, we're not held back by some odd e.g. SIGBUS that nobody |
24 |
knows how to fix. |
25 |
|
26 |
Possibly true (I've got no evidence to make a definite statement either |
27 |
way) - but there is a point in testing, or in pretty much any technical |
28 |
activity, when the amount of work required to polish something further |
29 |
begins to strongly outweigh the benefits. |
30 |
|
31 |
Moreover, the above doesn't really sound to me like a case in defence of |
32 |
stabilisation on exotic arches; quite the opposite in fact. |
33 |
|
34 |
> - Encourage developers to run test suites on their packages. This is |
35 |
a modern part of Gentoo development |
36 |
> and isn't optional if a package has a functioning test suite which |
37 |
isn't hell to get running - i.e. you should really |
38 |
> _try_. |
39 |
|
40 |
People who do not do this yet should be taken behind the chemicals shed |
41 |
and sho... I mean, be very much ashamed of themselves. Not sure what |
42 |
that has got to do with arch testing though, given what kind of hardware |
43 |
most of us do Gentoo development on. |
44 |
|
45 |
> - We drop any large suites of packages at least to ~arch where |
46 |
they're problematic. |
47 |
|
48 |
In addition to the dependency-creep problem already mentioned by Michał, |
49 |
I am not convinced that arbitrarily declaring some package or other not |
50 |
worthy of stable status on arch X would make the user experience on this |
51 |
arch better than downgrading the whole arch to ~X. Furthermore, I am |
52 |
pretty sure arch testers would then have to keep track of which packages |
53 |
must not be stabilised where - meaning more work. |
54 |
|
55 |
On 18/10/2021 01:25, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
56 |
|
57 |
> Could you please elaborate what you are expecting from this change? |
58 |
> |
59 |
> I.e. will this solve any problem (please name it)? Will it allow us to |
60 |
> move forward where we are blocked at the moment (please name it)? |
61 |
|
62 |
One part of this has already been mentioned by the others, i.e. all too |
63 |
often low activity on these arches ends up delaying overall progress of |
64 |
things such security issues for ALL Gentoo users. |
65 |
|
66 |
Another is that IMHO there are way too few people active in these arch |
67 |
teams to keep up with the work load - even including sam's activity |
68 |
pretty much all over the place, which at this rate I fear will result in |
69 |
him burning out soon, things are far from great. |
70 |
|
71 |
On 15/10/2021 22:40, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: |
72 |
|
73 |
> My machines should actually do some useful stuff, like running my |
74 |
Nagios and a |
75 |
> bunch of nightly builds (CMake, libarchive, things like that). For |
76 |
that, I'd |
77 |
> like to have the actual system to work. Given the amount of breakage |
78 |
I find |
79 |
> when doing stabilizations I suspect this is not going to happen. |
80 |
|
81 |
Maybe, maybe not... If my experience with RISC-V keywording is anything |
82 |
to go by, a lot of breakage comes from unexpected interactions due to |
83 |
throwing everything but a kitchen sink on a single system - which having |
84 |
to deal with stabilisation makes more likely, especially on an arch |
85 |
which does not see many new keywording requests (on riscv, which is |
86 |
still quite active in this respect, I simply run all keywording tests |
87 |
with --oneshot and regularly distclean the system). |
88 |
|
89 |
|
90 |
On 14/10/2021 18:10, Michał Górny wrote: |
91 |
|
92 |
> While we're discussing it, maybe we should start by defining a clear |
93 |
> criteria for platform support tiers? Like: what are the requirements |
94 |
> for a platform to maintain stable keywords? Then the decisions could |
95 |
> look less arbitrary, and people would have a clear way of knowing what |
96 |
> they need to do if they wish the platform to continue having stable |
97 |
> keywords. |
98 |
|
99 |
Not a bad idea but I wonder how much effort we might want to throw at |
100 |
this, especially given we're not Red Hat or SUSE. |
101 |
|
102 |
-- |
103 |
MS |