[gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Michał Górny]

Hi, everyone.

Just a quick idea of reordering / regrouping the arch list on Bugzilla.
Currently the list is split into 'stable' and 'unstable' arches which is
not very precise, and do not exactly match what arch teams are doing.

For that reason, I'd like to use three groups instead:

a. stable arches,
b. exp arches with stable keywords (you should CC them on stablereq if
they have stable keywords already),
c. pure ~arch.

The main idea is to stop mixing e.g. mips/*-fbsd and m68k/sh/sparc which
have different characteristics. While the former never use stable
keywords, tha latter have stable keywords (even if somewhat
inconsistent).

I've created a small HTML file with example of how this would look:

https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/cc.html

Besides regrouping, I've also reordered the keywords to use the same
sorting order as eshowkw (i.e. ppc before ppc64), moved 'BSD' into teams
(in contrast to 'AMD64 FBSD' and 'X86 FBSD'), and added 'Prefix' team.

What do you think?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Besides regrouping, I've also reordered the keywords to use the same
> sorting order as eshowkw (i.e. ppc before ppc64), moved 'BSD' into teams

(in contrast to 'AMD64 FBSD' and 'X86 FBSD'), and added 'Prefix' team.
>

I think these are all good improvements. In terms of having the best user
experience, I would actually advocate changing the order to sort by
frequency/use. So the list would just start with amd64, then x86, arm64,
ppc, or something like that? Probably we should still match order with
eshowkw, maybe there should be a file somewhere that keeps the current
order and we can regenerate it from time to time based on the latest use
counts.

Regards,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1271 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 16.01.2018 o godzinie 10∶15 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Besides regrouping, I've also reordered the keywords to use the same
> > sorting order as eshowkw (i.e. ppc before ppc64), moved 'BSD' into teams
> 
> (in contrast to 'AMD64 FBSD' and 'X86 FBSD'), and added 'Prefix' team.
> > 
> 
> I think these are all good improvements. In terms of having the best user
> experience, I would actually advocate changing the order to sort by
> frequency/use. So the list would just start with amd64, then x86, arm64,
> ppc, or something like that? Probably we should still match order with
> eshowkw, maybe there should be a file somewhere that keeps the current
> order and we can regenerate it from time to time based on the latest use
> counts.
> 

I disagree. I think most of the developers are used to the lexical sort,
and it keeps the order predictable. While I suppose keeping amd64
and x86 alongside for the sake of being commonly used would make sense,
I really have no clue how that would affect other arches.

By 'frequency' did you mean how many ebuilds are having the specific
keyword? Could you make some quick stats that would show how this would
look like right now?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1306 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I disagree. I think most of the developers are used to the lexical sort,
> and it keeps the order predictable. While I suppose keeping amd64
> and x86 alongside for the sake of being commonly used would make sense,
> I really have no clue how that would affect other arches.
>

It is a trade-off, of course. My hypothesis is that it would be easier to
use.


> By 'frequency' did you mean how many ebuilds are having the specific
> keyword? Could you make some quick stats that would show how this would
> look like right now?
>

Here's an estimation of the relative frequencies:

amd64 (37201)
x86 (33703)
ppc (15347)
arm (14387)
ppc64 (11647)
sparc (10054)
alpha (9219)
ia64 (8456)
hppa (8410)
arm64 (8194)
amd64-linux (7716)
mips (7602)
x86-linux (7409)
x86-fbsd (6102)
sh (4885)
s390 (4421)
ppc-macos (4098)
x86-macos (4028)
amd64-fbsd (3361)
x86-solaris (3202)
x64-macos (3187)
sparc-solaris (2464)
x64-solaris (2208)
m68k (2204)
sparc64-solaris (1344)
arm-linux (1135)
ppc-aix (971)
sparc-fbsd (902)
m68k-mint (626)
x64-cygwin (432)
x86-winnt (123)
x86-interix (5)
x86-cygwin (5)
ia64-hpux (5)
ppc64-linux (4)
arm64-linux (4)
x86-freebsd (1)

Regards,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1965 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 15.01.2018 o godzinie 23∶01 +0100, użytkownik Michał Górny
napisał:
> I've created a small HTML file with example of how this would look:
> 
> https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/cc.html
> 

I've updated the example to include the variant suggested by Dirkjan.
All arches are order according to the popularity (based on the results
from his mail), except Prefix which I left at the bottom as a special
case.

Since neither of the proposals has received any specific reply, I'm not
sure how to proceed from here. I suppose we can possibly have two lists
in different order so that people could use whichever they prefer.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Since neither of the proposals has received any specific reply, I'm not
> sure how to proceed from here. I suppose we can possibly have two lists
> in different order so that people could use whichever they prefer.
>

Not sure having two lists in Bugzilla would be an improvement. It would be
nice if more people expressed a preference, though!

Regards,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 816 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Mart Raudsepp]

On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 12:49 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > Since neither of the proposals has received any specific reply, I'm
> > not
> > sure how to proceed from here. I suppose we can possibly have two
> > lists
> > in different order so that people could use whichever they prefer.
> 
> Not sure having two lists in Bugzilla would be an improvement. It
> would be nice if more people expressed a preference, though!

Whatever order eshowkw gives for each block, as that's the tool I use
to find out which arches to CC in the first place.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

On 23-01-2018 12:49:00 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Michał Górny <[1]mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Since neither of the proposals has received any specific reply, I'm not
> > sure how to proceed from here. I suppose we can possibly have two lists
> > in different order so that people could use whichever they prefer.
> 
> Not sure having two lists in Bugzilla would be an improvement. It would be nice
> if more people expressed a preference, though!

I like the "popularity" order, but on top of that, I'd like to group
32/64 bits versions of arches.  Basically djc converted into:

AMD64
X86
PPC64
PPC
ARM64
ARM
SPARC64 (?)
SPARC
ALPHA
IA64
HPPA
MIPS
...

Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Michał Górny wrote:

> I've updated the example to include the variant suggested by
> Dirkjan. All arches are order according to the popularity (based on
> the results from his mail), except Prefix which I left at the bottom
> as a special case.

Whether you will have three or four major groups, please keep the
arches within each group in the same order as used by ekeyword and
ebuild-mode (i.e. OS as primary sort key, then arch).

IMHO sorting by popularity would be bad, because popularity tends to
change with time. Also, that wouldn't correspond to the order used by
ekeyword.

> Since neither of the proposals has received any specific reply, I'm
> not sure how to proceed from here. I suppose we can possibly have
> two lists in different order so that people could use whichever they
> prefer.

I believe that having two lists would only add confusion.

All in all, strong preference for the "mgorny suggested change" here.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 23.01.2018 o godzinie 13∶23 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
napisał:
> On 23-01-2018 12:49:00 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Michał Górny <[1]mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Since neither of the proposals has received any specific reply, I'm not
> > > sure how to proceed from here. I suppose we can possibly have two lists
> > > in different order so that people could use whichever they prefer.
> > 
> > Not sure having two lists in Bugzilla would be an improvement. It would be nice
> > if more people expressed a preference, though!
> 
> I like the "popularity" order, but on top of that, I'd like to group
> 32/64 bits versions of arches.  Basically djc converted into:
> 
> AMD64
> X86
> PPC64
> PPC
> ARM64
> ARM
> SPARC64 (?)
> SPARC
> ALPHA
> IA64
> HPPA
> MIPS
> ...
> 

Included your version on the page. I've also reordered amd64-fbsd before
x86-fbsd to match.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Thomas Deutschmann]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1309 bytes --]

Hi,

On 2018-01-23 12:46, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I've created a small HTML file with example of how this would look:
>>
>> https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/cc.html
>>
> 
> I've updated the example to include the variant suggested by Dirkjan.
> All arches are order according to the popularity (based on the results
> from his mail), except Prefix which I left at the bottom as a special
> case.

grobian's variant doesn't work for me:

When I start stabilization (especially for security bugs) I check
existing keywords via "ekeywords". For many packages I can select
"ALPHA" and scroll down to "Unstable arches", i.e. press and hold SHIFT
key and click "X86". Very easy. Grobian's variant would require to
deselect arm64 for example.

djc's variant is better than grobian's variant, however I prefer a label
item like current "Unstable arches" which makes it easy for me to spot
the end of the typical list.

In mgorny's variant I don't understand the differentiation between "exp"
and "~arch". I won't split them to be honest.

Can't we keep current variant, maybe rename "Unstable arches" into
"Unstable arches / exp" and just update "Other teams" items?


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Bugzilla arch list reordering

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 23.01.2018 o godzinie 21∶44 +0100, użytkownik Thomas
Deutschmann napisał:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2018-01-23 12:46, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I've created a small HTML file with example of how this would look:
> > > 
> > > https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/tmp/cc.html
> > > 
> > 
> > I've updated the example to include the variant suggested by Dirkjan.
> > All arches are order according to the popularity (based on the results
> > from his mail), except Prefix which I left at the bottom as a special
> > case.
> 
> grobian's variant doesn't work for me:
> 
> When I start stabilization (especially for security bugs) I check
> existing keywords via "ekeywords". For many packages I can select
> "ALPHA" and scroll down to "Unstable arches", i.e. press and hold SHIFT
> key and click "X86". Very easy. Grobian's variant would require to
> deselect arm64 for example.

If arm64 has stable keywords, you are expected to stabilize for it
as well.

> 
> djc's variant is better than grobian's variant, however I prefer a label
> item like current "Unstable arches" which makes it easy for me to spot
> the end of the typical list.
> 
> In mgorny's variant I don't understand the differentiation between "exp"
> and "~arch". I won't split them to be honest.

'exp' are arches you are supposed to stabilize for but there are not
first tier.

'~arch' are arches you never stabilize for.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny