Re: "random check" approach to Guix QA?

[Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net>]

Andy Tai <atai@atai.org> writes:

> Hi, currently Guix QA tries to rebuild all dependent packages impacted
> by a change (in majority of cases updates to a new version of a
> package).  When there are a large number of dependent packages like
> say 500 or 1000 or more, rebuilding all that takes a long time and
> often the rebuild cannot complete, leaving the patch submission
> dangling with no results.
>
> For some things where safety is important, for example import food
> safety, the regulatory authority may use random check or random
> sampling as a way to check for safety, in case that there is no
> resource to physically check every package.
>
> Can the same approach be borrowed here, so when there is large number
> of impacted packages from a patch, say larger than 200, Guix QA just
> randomly select a subset sample out of these packages and build them,
> and in case of (new) failures ask the submitter to fix the (new)
> failure? And repeat this as needed.   This way patches can go thru the
> QA process more quickly.

I think it should always do that.  Assign a weight to all derivations
that have to be built and choose from them randomly.
Could use a combination of dependents and estimated build time to comput
the weight.