[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michał Górny]

Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
---
 profiles/package.deprecated | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 profiles/package.deprecated

diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated b/profiles/package.deprecated
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..b4803a4ce68f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/profiles/package.deprecated
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+####################################################################
+#
+# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but not
+# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
+# packages depend on them.
+#
+# When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
+# in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
+# deprecated.
+#
+## Example:
+##
+## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
+## # This is no longer supported upstream, please switch to dev-foo/bar.
+## dev-foo/foo
+
+#--- END OF EXAMPLES ---
-- 
2.24.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> +####################################################################
> +#
> +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but
> not
> +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> +# packages depend on them.
> 


repoman would be more useful for this

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2019, 17:09:57 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
[...]
> +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but not
> +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> +# packages depend on them.

Just saying, this is an awesome functionality, and will be highly useful.

So, yes++

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Matt Turner]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:10 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> ---
>  profiles/package.deprecated | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 profiles/package.deprecated
>
> diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated b/profiles/package.deprecated
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b4803a4ce68f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/profiles/package.deprecated
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +####################################################################
> +#
> +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but not
> +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> +# packages depend on them.
> +#
> +# When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
> +# in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
> +# deprecated.
> +#
> +## Example:
> +##
> +## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> +## # This is no longer supported upstream, please switch to dev-foo/bar.
> +## dev-foo/foo
> +
> +#--- END OF EXAMPLES ---
> --
> 2.24.0

Yes, please!

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > +####################################################################
> > +#
> > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but
> > not
> > +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> > +# packages depend on them.
> > 
> 
> 
> repoman would be more useful for this

I wouldn't stop pkgcheck from supporting this, but repoman should as
well.

Thanks,

William


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:36:58PM +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > +################################################################
> > > ####
> > > +#
> > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated
> > > (but
> > > not
> > > +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> > > +# packages depend on them.
> > > 
> > 
> > repoman would be more useful for this
> 
> I wouldn't stop pkgcheck from supporting this, but repoman should as
> well.
> 
> 
> 

of course, that's what i meant ;)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > +####################################################################
> > +#
> > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but
> > not
> > +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> > +# packages depend on them.
> > 
> 
> repoman would be more useful for this
> 

Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining it.  I've
lost interest in contributing to the project after the last pointless
refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't seem
that anyone else has.

Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks
in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I don't
really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead repoman.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Mikle Kolyada]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

+1

5 декабря 2019 г. 19:09:57 GMT+03:00, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org> пишет:
>Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
>---
> profiles/package.deprecated | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 profiles/package.deprecated
>
>diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated b/profiles/package.deprecated
>new file mode 100644
>index 000000000000..b4803a4ce68f
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/profiles/package.deprecated
>@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>+####################################################################
>+#
>+# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but not
>+# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
>+# packages depend on them.
>+#
>+# When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the
>date
>+# in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
>+# deprecated.
>+#
>+## Example:
>+##
>+## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
>+## # This is no longer supported upstream, please switch to
>dev-foo/bar.
>+## dev-foo/foo
>+
>+#--- END OF EXAMPLES ---
>-- 
>2.24.0

-- 
Простите за краткость, создано в K-9 Mail.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1492 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > +################################################################
> > > ####
> > > +#
> > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated
> > > (but
> > > not
> > > +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> > > +# packages depend on them.
> > > 
> > 
> > repoman would be more useful for this
> > 
> 
> Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining it.  I've
> lost interest in contributing to the project after the last pointless
> refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't
> seem
> that anyone else has.
> 
> Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks
> in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I don't
> really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead
> repoman.
> 

it's not about who's maintaining what here...
just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it


unless i missed something, repoman is still the standard for pre-commit 
checks and raising everyone's attention on potential
improvements/issues; pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for
producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different problem

i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa-
reports like for eapis too


as for your current views on repoman vs pkgcheck, i have nothing
against stopping using repoman and switching to pkgcheck, but AFAIK
this has yet to happen at a policy level

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2451 bytes --]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > +################################################################
> > > > ####
> > > > +#
> > > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated
> > > > (but
> > > > not
> > > > +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> > > > +# packages depend on them.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > repoman would be more useful for this
> > > 
> > 
> > Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining it.  I've
> > lost interest in contributing to the project after the last pointless
> > refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't
> > seem
> > that anyone else has.
> > 
> > Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks
> > in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I don't
> > really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead
> > repoman.
> > 
> 
> it's not about who's maintaining what here...
> just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it

Oh, I've listed pkgcheck there because it's the only tool implementing
the file at the moment.  I'm happy to replace it with larger list or
something more generic once there are other tools.  However, I believe
that saying 'pkgcheck' right now has the advantage that devs know which
tool to use to see the result.

> unless i missed something, repoman is still the standard for pre-commit 
> checks and raising everyone's attention on potential
> improvements/issues;

Nope.  Per quite recent Council meeting pkgcheck is fully acceptable
alternative, and to my knowledge a number of devs have switched already.
Because they value their time and good package quality.

>  pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for
> producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different problem

There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally.  In fact,
it should work out of the box these days.  If you have any problems,
please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly.

> i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa-
> reports like for eapis too

I don't think there's really a point in duplicating this.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:10 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> ---
>  profiles/package.deprecated | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 profiles/package.deprecated
>
>
This looks great Michał, thanks for putting it together.

-A


> diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated b/profiles/package.deprecated
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b4803a4ce68f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/profiles/package.deprecated
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +####################################################################
> +#
> +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but not
> +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> +# packages depend on them.
> +#
> +# When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
> +# in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
> +# deprecated.
> +#
> +## Example:
> +##
> +## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> +## # This is no longer supported upstream, please switch to dev-foo/bar.
> +## dev-foo/foo
> +
> +#--- END OF EXAMPLES ---
> --
> 2.24.0
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1950 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Gerion Entrup]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2019, 19:04:50 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > unless i missed something, repoman is still the standard for pre-commit 
> > checks and raising everyone's attention on potential
> > improvements/issues;
> 
> Nope.  Per quite recent Council meeting pkgcheck is fully acceptable
> alternative, and to my knowledge a number of devs have switched already.
> Because they value their time and good package quality.

As a side note:
In this case, can someone with knowledge how to use pkgcheck please update
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GitHub_Pull_Requests#Step_4:_User_updates_the_local_repository

I have always used it as first address when making (occasional) pull requests.

Thanks,
Gerion


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 19:04 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > +############################################################
> > > > > ####
> > > > > ####
> > > > > +#
> > > > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered
> > > > > deprecated
> > > > > (but
> > > > > not
> > > > > +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever
> > > > > other
> > > > > +# packages depend on them.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > repoman would be more useful for this
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining
> > > it.  I've
> > > lost interest in contributing to the project after the last
> > > pointless
> > > refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't
> > > seem
> > > that anyone else has.
> > > 
> > > Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks
> > > in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I
> > > don't
> > > really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead
> > > repoman.
> > > 
> > 
> > it's not about who's maintaining what here...
> > just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it
> 
> Oh, I've listed pkgcheck there because it's the only tool
> implementing
> the file at the moment.  I'm happy to replace it with larger list or
> something more generic once there are other tools.  However, I
> believe
> that saying 'pkgcheck' right now has the advantage that devs know
> which
> tool to use to see the result.

IMHO maintaining such a list is better suited for devmanual or wiki;
just like skel.ebuild could be improved by removing portage references
and refer to PMS


> > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for
> > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different
> > problem
> 
> There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally.  In
> fact,
> it should work out of the box these days.  If you have any problems,
> please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly.

Sure I did that to get reports like what CI does for me now but that's
always been a different usecase; I wasn't aware pkgcheck had the
equivalent of repoman commit


> > i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa-
> > reports like for eapis too
> 
> I don't think there's really a point in duplicating this.

For now certainly not. Once someone wants to wipe a deprecated package
this could come in handy instead of searching a huge html page, but
sure this could be fixed the other way by having this in the per-check
reports like what is on the left side of the current CI reports

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Aaron Bauman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:09:57PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
> ---
>  profiles/package.deprecated | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 profiles/package.deprecated
> 
> diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated b/profiles/package.deprecated
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b4803a4ce68f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/profiles/package.deprecated
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +####################################################################
> +#
> +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated (but not
> +# masked yet).  It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other
> +# packages depend on them.
> +#
> +# When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
> +# in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
> +# deprecated.
> +#
> +## Example:
> +##
> +## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> +## # This is no longer supported upstream, please switch to dev-foo/bar.
> +## dev-foo/foo
> +
> +#--- END OF EXAMPLES ---
> -- 
> 2.24.0
> 
> 

Thank you for putting this together!

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Michał Górny schrieb:
> +####################################################################
> +#
> +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated

I think that is not an apt description in my understanding of your original 
post on the matter. The package.deprecated file is supposed to contain not 
just (qualified) package names, but some sort of package dependency 
specifications (PMS 8.2.6).

Perhaps the examples should also reflect this.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 01:36 +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > +####################################################################
> > +#
> > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated
> 
> I think that is not an apt description in my understanding of your original 
> post on the matter. The package.deprecated file is supposed to contain not 
> just (qualified) package names, but some sort of package dependency 
> specifications (PMS 8.2.6).
> 
> Perhaps the examples should also reflect this.
> 

I haven't tested anything but bare package names.  Feel free to test
and let me know how much of the dep syntax works.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Tim Harder]

On 2019-12-06 Fri 02:15, Michał Górny wrote:
> > I think that is not an apt description in my understanding of your original 
> > post on the matter. The package.deprecated file is supposed to contain not 
> > just (qualified) package names, but some sort of package dependency 
> > specifications (PMS 8.2.6).
> > 
> > Perhaps the examples should also reflect this.
> > 
> 
> I haven't tested anything but bare package names.  Feel free to test
> and let me know how much of the dep syntax works.

Speaking for pkgcheck, it supports the standard atom dep spec, i.e.
anything that works in package.mask should also work in
package.deprecated.

However, note that a matching pkg found both in the base package.mask
and package.deprecated won't be flagged as deprecated as it's currently
assumed those are mutually exclusive entries (and such entries might be
flagged at a later time).

Tim

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Tim Harder]

On 2019-12-05 Thu 17:00, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for
> > > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different
> > > problem
> > There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally.  In
> > fact,
> > it should work out of the box these days.  If you have any problems,
> > please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly.

> Sure I did that to get reports like what CI does for me now but that's
> always been a different usecase; I wasn't aware pkgcheck had the
> equivalent of repoman commit

While I dislike contributing more to this off-topic tangent, since I've
fielded this question/request in IRC a few times in the past I figure I
might as well address it again here for the IRC-averse.

Personally I use pkgcheck as a QA tool and *git* (or another vcs tool)
as a commit tool, just like how I used to use repoman and cvs a long
time ago. I generally dislike when cli tools amalgamate disparate
features that they weren't designed for so no one has been able to
convince me why a tool designed to verify ebuilds and their related
repos should support commit capabilities internally.

Furthermore, pkgcheck was designed to scale towards scanning multiple
pkgs, custom restrictions, or entire repos while I assume the majority
of repoman usage is run against singular pkgs. In many cases, a
multi-pkg scan doesn't map to a single commit so that functionality
would be pretty useless in those situations.

To aid those who believe this commit functionality necessary, I've
mentioned I would support improving API access and/or configurable exit
status settings allowing for easier pkgcheck scripting or other types of
external usage.

Tim

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 03:23 -0500, Tim Harder wrote:
> On 2019-12-05 Thu 17:00, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for
> > > > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different
> > > > problem
> > > There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally.  In
> > > fact,
> > > it should work out of the box these days.  If you have any
> > > problems,
> > > please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly.
> > Sure I did that to get reports like what CI does for me now but
> > that's
> > always been a different usecase; I wasn't aware pkgcheck had the
> > equivalent of repoman commit
> 
> While I dislike contributing more to this off-topic tangent, since
> I've
> fielded this question/request in IRC a few times in the past I figure
> I
> might as well address it again here for the IRC-averse.
> 
> Personally I use pkgcheck as a QA tool and *git* (or another vcs
> tool)
> as a commit tool, just like how I used to use repoman and cvs a long
> time ago. I generally dislike when cli tools amalgamate disparate
> features that they weren't designed for so no one has been able to
> convince me why a tool designed to verify ebuilds and their related
> repos should support commit capabilities internally.

it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;)
it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse to
even commit if there's something obviously wrong

as you write below, it's just a matter of checking exit status and
using git, which can be done by scripting, but the script is standard
(*) and mandated to be part of the workflow

it also allows to check or templatize commit messages to follow policy

(*) and force the use of some handy git options like only commit paths
starting from cwd even if other files had been git added, which i never
remember what is the git cli option for this

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Tim Harder]

On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;)
> it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse to
> even commit if there's something obviously wrong

I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality in
terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be run as a
git hook which would cause push failures on certain classes of bad
commits.

> as you write below, it's just a matter of checking exit status and
> using git, which can be done by scripting, but the script is standard
> (*) and mandated to be part of the workflow

> it also allows to check or templatize commit messages to follow policy

Technically pkgcheck supports more git-related checks than repoman last
I checked, i.e. result keywords including BadCommitSummary,
DirectStableKeywords, DroppedUnstableKeywords, DroppedStableKeywords,
DirectNoMaintainer, and MissingSignOff; with possible future additions
such as warning when modifying deps in an ebuild without revbumping.

Futhermore, one can scan against all commits in parallel via `pkgcheck
scan --commits` which will enable potential commit results that are
otherwise skipped.

Anyway, my main point is that if someone really wants commit
functionality it's semi-trivial to script something similar to what
repoman does (assuming exit status/api support exists) and if it's
decent enough quality (including tests) I'd probably consider adding it
to the pkgcheck repo.

Tim

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500
Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;)
> > it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse
> > to even commit if there's something obviously wrong
> 
> I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality in
> terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be run as a
> git hook which would cause push failures on certain classes of bad
> commits.


There should be both. Amending the 23rd commit message because one
mistyped a semicolon is kind of a PITA.

> > as you write below, it's just a matter of checking exit status and
> > using git, which can be done by scripting, but the script is
> > standard (*) and mandated to be part of the workflow
> 
> > it also allows to check or templatize commit messages to follow
> > policy
> 
> Technically pkgcheck supports more git-related checks than repoman
> last I checked, i.e. result keywords including BadCommitSummary,
> DirectStableKeywords, DroppedUnstableKeywords, DroppedStableKeywords,
> DirectNoMaintainer, and MissingSignOff; with possible future additions
> such as warning when modifying deps in an ebuild without revbumping.
> 
> Futhermore, one can scan against all commits in parallel via `pkgcheck
> scan --commits` which will enable potential commit results that are
> otherwise skipped.

All this seems post-commit, not pre-commit.

> Anyway, my main point is that if someone really wants commit
> functionality it's semi-trivial to script something similar to what
> repoman does (assuming exit status/api support exists) and if it's
> decent enough quality (including tests) I'd probably consider adding
> it to the pkgcheck repo.

It doesn't necessarily have to live in the pkgcheck repo, but it should
definitely not be "meh, script it yourself, it's trivial" since that
will probably lead to several scripts with varying degrees of quality
and brokeness.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2759 bytes --]

On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 03:23 -0500, Tim Harder wrote:
> On 2019-12-05 Thu 17:00, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for
> > > > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different
> > > > problem
> > > There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally.  In
> > > fact,
> > > it should work out of the box these days.  If you have any problems,
> > > please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly.
> > Sure I did that to get reports like what CI does for me now but that's
> > always been a different usecase; I wasn't aware pkgcheck had the
> > equivalent of repoman commit
> 
> While I dislike contributing more to this off-topic tangent, since I've
> fielded this question/request in IRC a few times in the past I figure I
> might as well address it again here for the IRC-averse.
> 
> Personally I use pkgcheck as a QA tool and *git* (or another vcs tool)
> as a commit tool, just like how I used to use repoman and cvs a long
> time ago. I generally dislike when cli tools amalgamate disparate
> features that they weren't designed for so no one has been able to
> convince me why a tool designed to verify ebuilds and their related
> repos should support commit capabilities internally.
> 
> Furthermore, pkgcheck was designed to scale towards scanning multiple
> pkgs, custom restrictions, or entire repos while I assume the majority
> of repoman usage is run against singular pkgs. In many cases, a
> multi-pkg scan doesn't map to a single commit so that functionality
> would be pretty useless in those situations.
> 

Exactly.  Building a workflow on 'repoman commit' is a horrible waste of
time.  This in turn causes developers to make worse commits (e.g. by
combining a lot of irrelevant changes just to workaround the workflow). 
It might have been necessary in times of CVS when we had to jump through
hoops to commit.  It doesn't fit git world anymore.

A much better workflow is to commit first, then run pkgcheck
on everything affected, then push.  It's faster, usually more correct
(as it checks the final state of all packages), and more flexible
(fixups, anyone?).

If you need something convenient to commit, app-portage/mgorny-dev-
scripts has pkgcommit tool which does the only useful part of what
repoman did -- that is, prepends package name to the commit message. 
For pre-push checks, I use the following oneliner:

$ pkgcheck scan $(git diff origin --name-only $(<profiles/categories) \
    | cut -d/ -f1-2 | sort -u); echo $?

I have it in bash history, and pkgch<pgup> takes care of it.  If people
want, I can add it to mgorny-dev-scripts under some fancy name.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Tim Harder]

On 2019-12-06 Fri 06:33, Michał Górny wrote:
> If you need something convenient to commit, app-portage/mgorny-dev-
> scripts has pkgcommit tool which does the only useful part of what
> repoman did -- that is, prepends package name to the commit message. 
> For pre-push checks, I use the following oneliner:

> $ pkgcheck scan $(git diff origin --name-only $(<profiles/categories) \
>     | cut -d/ -f1-2 | sort -u); echo $?

If you want to shorten that, `pkgcheck scan --commits` internalizes most
of that and at some point will be extended to enable profile/eclass
checks if it notices any related changes.

Tim

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Matt Turner]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:51 AM Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500
> Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;)
> > > it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse
> > > to even commit if there's something obviously wrong
> >
> > I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality in
> > terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be run as a
> > git hook which would cause push failures on certain classes of bad
> > commits.
>
>
> There should be both. Amending the 23rd commit message because one
> mistyped a semicolon is kind of a PITA.

It is?

git rebase -i HEAD~23

Is that what you think is a pain in the ass, or do you not know about
interactive rebase? :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michael 'veremitz' Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On 06/12/19 15:41, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:51 AM Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500
>> Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>>> it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did push ;)
>>>> it will never be perfect but i really like repoman commit to refuse
>>>> to even commit if there's something obviously wrong
>>> I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality in
>>> terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be run as a
>>> git hook which would cause push failures on certain classes of bad
>>> commits.
>>
>> There should be both. Amending the 23rd commit message because one
>> mistyped a semicolon is kind of a PITA.
> It is?
>
> git rebase -i HEAD~23
>
> Is that what you think is a pain in the ass, or do you not know about
> interactive rebase? :)
>
I hope you're not suggesting a rebase of any sort in gentoo.git, Matt .... ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:46 AM Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
<gentoo@veremit.xyz> wrote:
> I hope you're not suggesting a rebase of any sort in gentoo.git, Matt .... ;)

He's talking about rebasing local commits that haven't yet been
pushed. That's perfectly normal.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:41:56 -0500
Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:51 AM Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500
> > Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did
> > > > push ;) it will never be perfect but i really like repoman
> > > > commit to refuse to even commit if there's something obviously
> > > > wrong
> > >
> > > I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality
> > > in terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be
> > > run as a git hook which would cause push failures on certain
> > > classes of bad commits.
> >
> >
> > There should be both. Amending the 23rd commit message because one
> > mistyped a semicolon is kind of a PITA.
> 
> It is?
> 
> git rebase -i HEAD~23
> 
> Is that what you think is a pain in the ass, or do you not know about
> interactive rebase? :)


You made me look at the doc and I indeed had never used the reword
option ;) got stuck at pick/squash/edit somehow and that's the edit I
did consider a PITA yes

Without good integration from the checker it is probably a PITA to
figure out that 23 too and also still doesn't help for broken commits
(not messages) that may or may not trigger later conflicts (unless we
decide we don't care about working commits, just working pushes, which
WFM)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michael 'veremitz' Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 378 bytes --]

On 06/12/19 16:28, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:46 AM Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
> <gentoo@veremit.xyz> wrote:
>> I hope you're not suggesting a rebase of any sort in gentoo.git, Matt .... ;)
> He's talking about rebasing local commits that haven't yet been
> pushed. That's perfectly normal.
>
Fair .. it was a very tongue-in-cheek remark .. fwiw.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 12/6/19 11:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> 
> Without good integration from the checker it is probably a PITA to
> figure out that 23 too

If you're reading through your commit log and if you see something
wrong, you can

  $ git rebase -i <hash-of-commit-before-that>

to do a rebase starting at the one you'd like to fix.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:58:47 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

>   $ git rebase -i <hash-of-commit-before-that>
> 
> to do a rebase starting at the one you'd like to fix.


Or, if you know the hash of the faulty commit, you can do:

    $ git rebase -i DEADBEEF^1

( 1st parent of commit DEADBEEF )

Which absolves you from needing to determine the parent commit manually.

I believe 

    $ git rebase -i DEADBEEF~24

Is also valid for "24th ancestor of commit DEADBEEF"


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:03:23 +0100
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> (*) and force the use of some handy git options like only commit paths
> starting from cwd even if other files had been git added, which i never
> remember what is the git cli option for this

There isn't so much a CLI option, more, there's a parameter that "git
commit" takes which allows you to enumerate which paths to commit.

So:

  git commit

Commits everything staged.

  git commit .

Commits only CWD

But, with one important caveat:

  git commit

Will only commit changes previously added with "git add" or whatever to
the index.

  git commit .

Will commit *any* changes to anything in "." as long as they're
"tracked" by git.

But this is what repoman does anyway ;)

The doc line for this in "git help commit" is:

   3. by listing files as arguments to the commit command (without
   --interactive or --patch switch), in which case the commit will
   ignore changes staged in the index, and instead record the current
   content of the listed files (which must already be known to Git);


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template

[Joonas Niilola]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 400 bytes --]


>>> repoman would be more useful for this
>> I wouldn't stop pkgcheck from supporting this, but repoman should as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
> of course, that's what i meant ;)



Looks like it does now,

https://bugs.gentoo.org/702100

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=7bb5d7b074164ceae5f03ddfb40881a7cc6f12dd

(didn't see a reply in this thread about this update)



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 642 bytes --]