From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1597A15800A for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 18:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD744E08F5; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 18:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6172BE08DB for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 18:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <19edc9b0-6f85-cd19-48ed-d2b7152d256a@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 21:04:35 +0300 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package stabilization groups To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Matt Turner Cc: Sam James , Tim Harder References: Content-Language: en-US From: Arthur Zamarin In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------z0lKP0xJYTNyuaR00I7NrWqs" X-Archives-Salt: f052c852-5d3e-40c8-be83-7725f5d7d341 X-Archives-Hash: 7724e8ffba60d69d6977de9199dd3548 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------z0lKP0xJYTNyuaR00I7NrWqs Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------m7kffd0kSM4OhevUrdVRUhjO"; protected-headers="v1" From: Arthur Zamarin To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Matt Turner Cc: Sam James , Tim Harder Message-ID: <19edc9b0-6f85-cd19-48ed-d2b7152d256a@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Package stabilization groups References: In-Reply-To: --------------m7kffd0kSM4OhevUrdVRUhjO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 16/07/2023 17.57, Matt Turner wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Many of us have started using `pkgdev bugs` to file stabilization > bugs. It works well (Thanks Arthur!) and I encourage everyone to give > it a try. Gladly :) You can semi-blame mgorny for the creation of `pkgdev bugs`, because I started to file stablereqs for @python packages, and at some point it was too tiring and repetitive, so I was brought to the drawing table to think of a solution. > Where possible, it files one stabilization bug per package. This makes > arch testers' jobs easier and makes the task easier to automate. >=20 > But sometimes we do want to stabilize packages together. For example > major versions of x11-wm/mutter and gnome-base/gnome-shell are tied > together. If a new mutter is stabilized without the new gnome-shell, > the tree will still be consistent, but emerge -u @world will warn > users that the mutter upgrade is blocked. >=20 > There was some brief discussion on IRC about how to document these > groupings, and two main ideas were suggested: >=20 > - add a field to metadata.xml to specify the group by an arbitrary name= =2E > E.g. > Each package in the group would specify the same value of name=3D"...= " >=20 > - maintain the groups in a separate place (similar to portage @sets). >=20 > Can anyone think of particular advantages or disadvantages to one > solution versus the other? Any other (better) ideas? Let me list some things as advantages to each one (since I see an advantage to one as disadvantage to other). Advantages of field in metadata.xml: - local to package, easier to not miss. Easier to follow for the maintain= er. - easier to find which group the current package relates to Advantages to group files: - easier to index (one file listing all children, instead of searching across repo who defines it) - easier to not repeat group. In the metadata field it might happen to repeat, less likely since it is easy to search, but similar group names might be created, merging them into one by mistake, or creating very similar names and mistaking them. When we have a single file, it is easier to see the whole picture and verify things. - since this is compressed information (special files instead of spread over repo), we could load all of them into app's cache, and make all computation easier. - enables an easier syntax as `pkgdev bugs @group1` to file a single bug for all of them. In Gnome's case as an example, we could have "gnome1", "gnome2", "gnome3", "gnome4", etc - groups standing for multiple "layers/stages" of stabilizing, and then you could just file `pkgdev bugs @gnome{1..4}` to file "at one click" the whole gnome stablereqs. > Thanks, > Matt Now I'll speak from the point of implementer of `pkgdev bugs`. For me I think both approaches are good, but I would prefer the latter over the former. Nicer syntax, easy cache of all groups, easier to solve the "graph problems" in the tool. --=20 Arthur Zamarin arthurzam@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (Python, pkgcore stack, Arch Teams, GURU) --------------m7kffd0kSM4OhevUrdVRUhjO-- --------------z0lKP0xJYTNyuaR00I7NrWqs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE/axFlFuH2ptjtO5EAqCvUD0SBQQFAmS0MTMACgkQAqCvUD0S BQTPVQf+NUxAsJDr6VP5sGVOkinA+qHdLq+5quK9+gtss9674psYmm8zxcHfCH1U vF9zNEoehano7GwWosqztt9XrpN7uzj3CkFadjiAY5kJ5ZDcCWb0dV5cxj1Ylnui SZZeiHUQiTFSCFJ4+QBKQl5ao6ZOxdEmUDKYweuKx8yH/RqWWN6wMxN1SUBQFHjM kZN/X2zWGiDl7SGMT2g4gC5x0+99BWfb+hllBvESlj447yCYrDWM6CMjOx/AGjpM cJ+Psi++YBrYWSU+r5zI7FIHUEE0bISrVuYWm9HgYzs6gTDL+MUb4s0O+d6eiRmL MFW8eA1hRWb1LvKSaodJJlVJ2Ni4dw== =Pjcg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------z0lKP0xJYTNyuaR00I7NrWqs--