From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ng0 Subject: Re: stability of master - just QA and hydra is not enough Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 19:24:25 +0000 Message-ID: <20170701192425.iu7ykwyz6prdoiot@abyayala> References: <20170701173604.vjzta4fccjfuqxoy@abyayala> <20170701180111.GA29205@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xr6kszvz2gbpt5p7" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46242) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dRO0o-00071f-U5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:25:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dRO0l-0004iW-PX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:24:58 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:49864) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dRO0l-0004i4-IR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:24:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170701180111.GA29205@jasmine.lan> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --xr6kszvz2gbpt5p7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leo Famulari transcribed 3.2K bytes: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 05:36:04PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > > (This is brief and incomplete, just the way I see it right now) >=20 > [...] >=20 > > imagine that _before_ commits end up in master we build a set of > > virtual systems which at least must: > >=20 > > - be build successfully > > - run through the initrd > > - briefly see the login manager > >=20 > > We then need guidelines which commits are classified for building > > on which set of test machines. > > Finally the commit must be approved by more than 1 person and > > commited. > >=20 > > There are odds and scenarios we can not test, but what we can > > test we should test. > > Stability must not be an enterprise feature (as it was mentioned > > in the past), it is expected by people who don't want to waste > > time with developing. Even reporting bugs is only done by those > > who bother to do so or are able to. I have more to add to the > > reasons when I can send out an longer email, this is just a bit > > of an impulse. >=20 > First, is there some outstanding bug that needs to be fixed? It's > frustrating to get messages like this without any context. Yes, but I certainly will not run reconfigure on here from HEAD again. When I ran into this I had not git setup, now I have. So someone else must do this. > I agree that we should strive to make the master branch more reliable. >=20 > However, it must be understood that the main Guix contributors are > almost always *at the limit* of how much time and energy they can spend > on Guix. Sure, hence the disclaimer "brief" on the top. I will write a longer text later this month to get more into detail about my ideas. > Adding rules like requiring somebody else to test and approve a change > is unrealistic, since we can barely do what we do now. This suggestion > is basically equivalent to adding things to the patch review queue. > > As for automated QA, our build farm is also almost always operating at > its limit. This is an easier problem to solve, because we can spend > money to increase the capacity. However... >=20 > > 0: What is it these days? Is hydra now just a in-retirement frontend > > for cuirass or how does bayfront work these days? I understand cuirass, > > not hydra. >=20 > ... Bayfront is still not fully operational, so hydra.gnu.org is still > serving as the front-end of the build farm. We are still relying on the > Hydra software. That is, the situation is basically the same as before. > Adding build machines will not help very much until the front-end > hardware gets faster. So you're basically saying: yes good idea, I agree but this is too much presure on too little capacity in people and machines and we can not do any of this any time soon. Or did I miss something? --=20 ng0 GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org --xr6kszvz2gbpt5p7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEqIyK3RKYKNfqwC5S4i+bv+40hYgFAllX9ugACgkQ4i+bv+40 hYj6gw//agdMLRn7PvmoWCFITWv+EsOrQR/YEvMXKL0l988wg5hZsLUaVrEElBjg T4Y7fQKHbB70WoycfyZE5rMyflGWRkEkZhnsRRQ9S2+/QhXA7MCum8I/CBfsHcoI WT37AvgrB2QHbpiK0ZTM9ji+QXS+muvSeOXs2IVi98LuMVcDbZb76Zj1OASbaac+ Im2xhZnn3uQhOm1kg0cVtJi4AKM7TkXvktuXFZCYgREcJdk7nnFqQuUhUA37zV8t 2CF98f/dIT/hdIKL7BADVkytfNY0M6Z/6Hn1OeWTw0MnR8wXfpZ4+T1ohGZY1m8j ntpqpPecG2TMuY2Oy6z3+I6VFM8a895mc+WMVLVKTg4wZKVTEiCs2qfy3uOZSEUR kh+2hASI3G3yVMSWK22DTbuK3ppoBapY2Bg3rtnVBzwRNL/YaiIJ/WVD0cBUIB4+ eJtx1MN3IlLFArCo1VJMdGX4w1/hl5kzel5tXODsu7tS0zxHKwGa0tY+0l+SOAoh 9WZ3RSIKzo5KTyuOwOwH+rEkOQR7l8oVHSduoe29GtL6DiKv6H8f9jBBvrmf8Lp3 c2AXX7/N0Yxaubks8AVigmGOjNHgv9FDxe9ThxUA4/vqNZsuf87jo6Pi5jwJNcnZ KzpOl4thrIw+bKufawtRHu9rOfKkbixtIyZun7Y7ocWQg43gJtI= =OLNo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xr6kszvz2gbpt5p7--