[gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512


Hi all, 

the debate about arches, keywording and stabilization procedures is coming up again.

People have told me that the whole debate seems to turn into some sort of arch-team bashing. That is definitely not the plan. Also, supporting many different types of hardware is actually one of the strong points of Gentoo.

So, it would be absolutely great to have more feedback from the arch teams, especially suggestions 
* how to improve procedures, 
* where you see the main problems, and 
* where you don't see problems...

Please make your voice heard. Noone wants to overrule an active team.

Cheers, 
Andreas

PS. I've ommitted amd64, hppa, and arm from the manual CC list because these are the stable arches I'm definitely not worried about. Obviously feedback is appreciated anyway.

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0
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=4wlA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 11-04-2015 a las 21:50 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> Hi all, 
> 
> the debate about arches, keywording and stabilization procedures is
> coming up again.
> 
> People have told me that the whole debate seems to turn into some sort
> of arch-team bashing. That is definitely not the plan. Also,
> supporting many different types of hardware is actually one of the
> strong points of Gentoo.
> 
> So, it would be absolutely great to have more feedback from the arch
> teams, especially suggestions 
> * how to improve procedures, 
> * where you see the main problems, and 
> * where you don't see problems...
> 
> Please make your voice heard. Noone wants to overrule an active team.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Andreas
> 
> PS. I've ommitted amd64, hppa, and arm from the manual CC list because
> these are the stable arches I'm definitely not worried about.
> Obviously feedback is appreciated anyway.
> 

I think we need a common place to share all the scripts we are needing
to use to:
- Stabilize a bunch of packages from different bug reports
- Stabilize big lists from *one* bug report
- All the bug handling (unCC arches when needed, close the bug when it's
the last arch)
- The scripts running "repoman full" on the stable candidates to report
if they are not ok due to missing deps.
- ...

And, ideally, that multiple script should be unified if possible once we
can see them all in that repo and take the best from them :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Mikle Kolyada]

11.04.2015 23:51, Pacho Ramos пишет:
> El sáb, 11-04-2015 a las 21:50 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>> Hi all, 
>>
>> the debate about arches, keywording and stabilization procedures is
>> coming up again.
>>
>> People have told me that the whole debate seems to turn into some sort
>> of arch-team bashing. That is definitely not the plan. Also,
>> supporting many different types of hardware is actually one of the
>> strong points of Gentoo.
>>
>> So, it would be absolutely great to have more feedback from the arch
>> teams, especially suggestions 
>> * how to improve procedures, 
>> * where you see the main problems, and 
>> * where you don't see problems...
>>
>> Please make your voice heard. Noone wants to overrule an active team.
>>
>> Cheers, 
>> Andreas
>>
>> PS. I've ommitted amd64, hppa, and arm from the manual CC list because
>> these are the stable arches I'm definitely not worried about.
>> Obviously feedback is appreciated anyway.
>>
> I think we need a common place to share all the scripts we are needing
> to use to:
> - Stabilize a bunch of packages from different bug reports
> - Stabilize big lists from *one* bug report
> - All the bug handling (unCC arches when needed, close the bug when it's
> the last arch)
> - The scripts running "repoman full" on the stable candidates to report
> if they are not ok due to missing deps.
> - ...
>
> And, ideally, that multiple script should be unified if possible once we
> can see them all in that repo and take the best from them :)
>
>

Ok. Here is my small input. I've been around arch teams and testing for
a long time. And i'm mainly taking care of system-important packages. In
my opinion the main problem is.. people. Now we have lack of manpower as
usual.
So i think, we have to drop stable packages for some so-called "fun
packages". I've noticed for example, that gimp has stable alpha keyword.
Have you ever run gimp on alpha servers?
I am sure, there are more stable-unneeded packages like games, maybe
some programming languages, and so on for others non-mainstream arches.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 11-04-2015 a las 21:50 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> Hi all, 
> 
> the debate about arches, keywording and stabilization procedures is coming up again.
> 
> People have told me that the whole debate seems to turn into some sort of arch-team bashing. That is definitely not the plan. Also, supporting many different types of hardware is actually one of the strong points of Gentoo.
> 
> So, it would be absolutely great to have more feedback from the arch teams, especially suggestions 
> * how to improve procedures, 
> * where you see the main problems, and 
> * where you don't see problems...
> 
> Please make your voice heard. Noone wants to overrule an active team.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Andreas
> 
> PS. I've ommitted amd64, hppa, and arm from the manual CC list because these are the stable arches I'm definitely not worried about. Obviously feedback is appreciated anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting
for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be parsed.

One option could be to change the way bugs are filled when "Keyword &
Stabilization" component is chosen. When that is the case, instead of
letting people to play with "Summary" field freely, people would only be
able to specify package atoms to be stabilized and, once supplied,
bugzilla would take care of reworking the summary to something like:
=${P}: stable request -> for the cases where only 1 package is supplied
=${P}, =${P1}: stable request -> when a few packages are supplied
separated by commas
BLABLABLA list stable request -> when reporter chooses (with a
checkbox... or KEYWORD or... :/) that they are going to attach a full
list for stabilizing (as this cases need to be treated in a completely
different way 

Is this technically possible?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting
> for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be parsed.
>

For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing
by a computer program?

If the latter, would it make more sense to just break things out into
fields, instead of carefully building a structured text field which we
then have to carefully break back down?  We might as well start
sticking xml in the summary.

If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how
variation makes your life more difficult today?  I'm just trying to
understand what we're trying to fix...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 26-04-2015 a las 08:04 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting
> > for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be parsed.
> >
> 
> For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing
> by a computer program?
> 
> If the latter, would it make more sense to just break things out into
> fields, instead of carefully building a structured text field which we
> then have to carefully break back down?  We might as well start
> sticking xml in the summary.
> 
> If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how
> variation makes your life more difficult today?  I'm just trying to
> understand what we're trying to fix...
> 

About parsing it with scripts. For example, a script that could run
periodically to fetch that lists, try to keyword them and see if repoman
is ok with them or, otherwise, more deps need to be stabilized together.
That would also allow us to easily fetch the list of packages + bugs we
need to work on to, for example, emerge them (without needing to go to
the list, copy the needed package atoms, paste them on a local file, go
to the next bug...)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:04:11 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting
> > for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be
> > parsed.
> >
> 
> For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing
> by a computer program?

Both. If the Summary is structured properly, YOU can parse a list of
Summaries quicker[1] and a MACHINE can parse it more reliably.

> If the latter, would it make more sense to just break things out into
> fields, instead of carefully building a structured text field which we
> then have to carefully break back down?  We might as well start
> sticking xml in the summary.

Now you're breaking the human interface with XML.

> If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how
> variation makes your life more difficult today?  I'm just trying to
> understand what we're trying to fix...

Reading through hundreds of Summaries. If the atoms and the request
variant are always in the same place, parsing by humans is MUCH quicker.

Why do I feel I keep pointing out the obvious (for around ten years
already)?


Kind regards,
     jer


[1] Especially when it doesn't contain fluff like "please" or the
umpteenth variant on "stable".

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:04:11 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how
> > variation makes your life more difficult today?  I'm just trying to
> > understand what we're trying to fix...
> 
> Reading through hundreds of Summaries. If the atoms and the request
> variant are always in the same place, parsing by humans is MUCH quicker.

Look at security bugs that ask for stabilization with the goal of
having a GLSA. The bugs all look the same and I wish all
stabilization and keywording bugs adopted the same format.

There is one corner case where that format is not enough:
multiple ebuilds/versions with non-homogenic archs, i.e.:

cat-egory/packageA-1.2.3    amd64 x86 alpha
cat-egory/packageB-2.3.9    amd64 alpha
cat-egory/packageC-3.99     amd64 x86 ppc64
cat-egory/packageD-10.2.5a  alpha

The format I used here seemes to be slightly more common than
others and it is good enough for me™.

Any add-on prose should be _after_ the standardized bit.

And while we're talking about ponies:

Let's make it trivial for the requester to also specify the
_correct and complete_ list of per-arch dependencies that also
need to be tested and keyworded. It is one of the most annoying
things about stabilization bugs: having to hunt dependencies.

Side note: please make sure to include all FEATURES=test gated
dependencies, too. The prose should also mention if there are
circular ones (I'm looking at you, dev-ruby/*).


There, now that's off my chest.

Regards,
Tobias



-- 
Sent from aboard the Culture ship
	GCU Sacrificial Victim

Re: [gentoo-dev] Hey arch teams, we need your input!

[Pacho Ramos]

El mar, 28-04-2015 a las 11:07 +0200, Tobias Klausmann escribió:
[...]
> There is one corner case where that format is not enough:
> multiple ebuilds/versions with non-homogenic archs, i.e.:
> 
> cat-egory/packageA-1.2.3    amd64 x86 alpha
> cat-egory/packageB-2.3.9    amd64 alpha
> cat-egory/packageC-3.99     amd64 x86 ppc64
> cat-egory/packageD-10.2.5a  alpha
> 
> The format I used here seemes to be slightly more common than
> others and it is good enough for me™.
> 
> Any add-on prose should be _after_ the standardized bit.
> 

Yeah, we also use that format for gnome stuff... anyway, I don't mind
having a different option -> provide "list-${arch}" attachments with the
concrete lists per arch :/

Any preference?