Re: Changes to the branching/commit policy

[John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com>]

Hi Chris,


On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 10:57 AM, Christopher Baines wrote:
>
> John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:
>
>> Thanks for these changes! Question on branches (sorry if this was
>> covered in a previous thread, but now that we have new language in the
>> manual I figure this is a good place): do we have a convention on
>> branch names and subject headers for emailing patches for the branch?
>> e.g. does [PATCH <branch> 1/3] do anything on the QA end?
>
> On the names of branches, there's some typical names like XXXX-team, or
> wip-XXXX but really it's up to you.
>
> QA doesn't currently support applying patches to anything other than the
> master branch, but that's something that should probably be addressed at
> some point. I'd encourage you to do whatever you think is useful here,
> then hopefully QA can use that to act appropriately.
>

Sounds good, a simple identifier in the "[PATCH]" subject, like for
core-updates, seems simple enough to get started.

>> Or does the section about branch building for once patches are pushed
>> to a branch on Savannah?
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I'm confused myself over my wording, but I remember what I was trying
to get at:

Currently QA doesn't build patches if they cause a large number of
rebuilds correct? So for building a branch that requires this, will
that only happen on Cuirass with a new jobspec for the branch? Or will
this be addressed through changes to how QA builds? (Maybe this
answered below actually.)

>
>> Does that mean pushing to a branch should follow the same 1-2 week
>> review allowing QA builds? I guess patch series are always built
>> together on QA but wondering if there is anything else to be aware of
>> or needs mentioning to keep things tidy and clear.
>
> Those durations mentioned in the commit policy [1] are intended to allow
> for human review. For QA, it doesn't need to be time based as it can
> report it's progress. Obviously it does need a bit of time to check
> things, but I prefer to leave it up to people to assess the changes and
> any information provided by QA and decide when it's appropriate to push.
>
> 1: <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html#Commit-Policy>
>

A separate issue which I wanted to get at was about pushing changes to
any branch on Savannah. Do we expect those to be at the same state as
anything that would go directly to master, just pending the testing of
builds basically? So, after the usual review period? Or can those be
more WIP and not polished yet? I suppose this is for a team/people
working on a branch to discuss and how it will then be merged to
master.

> On keeping things clear, I think with branches I'm hoping the issue
> tracker can help with this, which is why there's now a strong
> requirement to create a guix-patches issue when you want to merge a
> branch, and use those issues to manage the timing.
>
> For those issues, there's currently a convention of using the following
> title: `Request for merging "XXXX" branch` e.g. [2]. That helps QA find
> these issues and act accordingly, but of course if someone comes up with
> a better way of naming these issues, we can just adjust the code in the
> qa-frontpage.
>

I see, that's a nice way to then group up discussion if a branch has a
bunch of separate patch threads. Looks like a good idea!

So, to be concrete, with the mesa patch I just sent,
<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64175> I can open a merge request issue for
QA to process the branch, once the branch is actually created on
Savannah? I assume with the pretty trivial version change here I could
do that to see how the builds go, but I'll hold off pending the thread
I just started about this branch/team.

> 2: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63713>
> 3:
> <https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/qa-frontpage.git/tree/guix-qa-frontpage/branch.scm#n63>
>
> Thanks for your questions :)
>
> Chris
>

And thanks again for all you do here, the Guix tooling has been making
great progress!

John