From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: stability of master - just QA and hydra is not enough Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 15:52:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20170701195214.GA23067@jasmine.lan> References: <20170701173604.vjzta4fccjfuqxoy@abyayala> <20170701180111.GA29205@jasmine.lan> <20170701192425.iu7ykwyz6prdoiot@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49660) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dRORI-0003rJ-T3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:52:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dRORF-0007X8-QB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:52:20 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:47981) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dRORF-0007W8-Ei for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:52:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (c-73-165-108-70.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.165.108.70]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4C6D724254 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2017 15:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170701192425.iu7ykwyz6prdoiot@abyayala> 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: guix-devel@gnu.org --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 07:24:25PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > > First, is there some outstanding bug that needs to be fixed? It's > > frustrating to get messages like this without any context. >=20 > 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 spent my time to find the bug and report it: > 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? I'm saying that we could do better. I don't think that requiring more review of proposed changes from project members is a good idea. Already, patch review is too much work. Not to mention all the other work. Automated QA is a good idea but we currently lack the resources to do it. --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAllX/W4ACgkQJkb6MLrK fwhJVRAA66Izo5+bqKPk97r3hUaguCFew0KZeRFBdArBnpjGuApnaopeHLedT9K9 K+IPKRiKkODjPPMocs1AMUF4tOGcoxIZHTa+i21Sm8bsiT6PjA0q60cGsaObxEux 7AfTWEsOXGnrC4bNTJjfJVeRs+BLI8FUL5LR8VXB/hpzRuFt1DlD6H/v6sWQvh/0 8p28ZgDpvirquh+wJbIXTQOG4YdtkJc+rxKh5KF3HGG2SFBZsWEL3YakZUdFJidA nL/y4+6iXtfZgMnv7ADGxbC4zvNiUHj+ePeCHAEHFxdDUXY3gEReM3M4RLhzbQ5W /IPUWUknRbK8+iioSXGR3/VzvVNUOcOtVijvjcIIOC9UAgCasV6vctCunewnKXeA fAa8/oU3tlSFLCqAVF8cQvZTBWoP0dpjZhRn+w+REDU/OXEvOerLWy/LByO5fpVo xk8cbjrqlzo0ENEVOUv8BN/Piiz9bU0UhKkSDcFoe+FSApmOGYqNrs73XGW+uuXs boiydvdFpUrrRVxxdHAP79ZnxhtUsTfbSkLJjTrHUnOABCEAqJcu1kV4dOGZ3gJb GKJF6yirNR32dW1Vi9vpz4hXG9pv7vKWLN2VzxKRysOalMtv362SYKynUNntjf3B tUo3JPpVuyf+4VqaaegG9WRM3e2K/23SlnGDpke9z7y8WHVMv0k= =Kwe7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs--