| 1 |
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:39:09 +0200 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 9 January 2013 18:17, Vicente Olivert Riera <peratu@×××××××××.com> |
| 5 |
> > some devs and I were talking about the fact that TESTED bugzilla |
| 6 |
> > keyword may need a change on his description, or, maybe it's needed |
| 7 |
> > to create new TESTED_${ARCH} keywords. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Personally, I was using TESTED keyword when an ebuild was tested on |
| 10 |
> > every CC'ed arch, but there are some discrepancy about that, so we |
| 11 |
> > decided to discuss this topic on gentoo-dev@ |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > What do you think? What about to create a TESTED_${ARCH} keyword for |
| 14 |
> > every arch? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Backgrounder: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Until 2006, the TESTED keyword was used mainly by the amd64 team, when there |
| 19 |
was a bit of a race to get everything keyworded for amd64 that was already |
| 20 |
keyworded for x86.[1] Since then it was disused, until peratu picked it up recently. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
One problem with TESTED is that it's ambiguous. Even if an arch tester has |
| 23 |
covered all affected arches, someone might add an extra arch after TESTED got |
| 24 |
added, and then TESTED would have to be removed again. One solution is to |
| 25 |
remove it or never use it, and another is to split it out into TESTED_$arch, |
| 26 |
which as Markos says, might get the Keywords field a bit crowded. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Another problem with TESTED is that anyone can add it or remove it. Looking |
| 29 |
through the comments or the bug report's History then becomes a necessity once |
| 30 |
again, which kind of evades the whole purpose of having a single place to look |
| 31 |
up what arches a package was already tested on. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Also, the comments might reveal information that might stop you from |
| 34 |
stabilising the package, like a second arch tester contesting that in some |
| 35 |
configuration, the package doesn't work as expected or causes a regression, so |
| 36 |
this makes TESTED ambiguous in quite a different way yet again, and the |
| 37 |
Keywords field offers no clue to this. There would at least have to be a policy |
| 38 |
where arch testers can contest the keyword by removing it again, but even so |
| 39 |
the arch developer could be acting on a single reading of Keywords. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> The "Keywords" field will end up huge if every CC'd arch uses it's own |
| 42 |
> TESTED_$ARCH keyword. Although only x86 and amd64 have arch testers |
| 43 |
> nowadays. Would it be preferred to have a list of checkboxes for every |
| 44 |
> CC'd arch, and Arch Testers have privileges to select them if a |
| 45 |
> package works for their arch? This would eliminate the "works on |
| 46 |
> $arch" comments that flood the stabilization bugs. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
You would still get those comments posted and messages sent upon changes to the |
| 49 |
bug report, unless you somehow switched that off internally or through your |
| 50 |
Bugzilla mail preferences or mail filters. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
A lot clearer than a single text field littered with keywords would be some |
| 53 |
tick boxes, indeed. In fact, it makes me wonder why we use a half-obscured list |
| 54 |
in a select field for adding/removing arch teams now. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Regards, |
| 58 |
jer |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
[1] Back in the day, it was common to assign keywording/stabilisation bugs to |
| 62 |
arch teams, instead of to its maintainers as it is done now. This turned out |
| 63 |
problematic in cases where another arch was added to the bug report after |
| 64 |
the fact - the maintainers would have to become Assignee and the Assignee |
| 65 |
arch would be placed in the CC list. One bug wrangler even had the habit of |
| 66 |
switching maintainers/arch teams when the arch team turned out to be |
| 67 |
"slacking", which would then involve the samek awkwardness in reassigning |
| 68 |
the bug report back to its maintainers upon its resolution. |
Archives