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 TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAA371382C5 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 707CFE0908; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2704DE08FA for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <3659cb05278878398f39a8a93a4340c5a151f7af.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Continuous integration on GURU From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: guru@gentoo.org, guru-devs@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:03:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2113586.72vocr9iq0@spectre> References: <13171428.RDIVbhacDa@spectre> <58222e6973413f903cc233b51df74b5593e80571.camel@gentoo.org> <2113586.72vocr9iq0@spectre> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.0 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 7d9059f0-0c0b-41cd-9a00-f343d7f3bd19 X-Archives-Hash: 6ad2a6d13fbd20d30156818f7c4e3b62 On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 14:39 +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On giovedì 22 aprile 2021 12:02:20 CEST Michał Górny wrote: > > Well, I suppose scanning the dev branch would be preferable over > > the master branch. In reality, they are usually only a few hours apart > > but it might be useful to know of new breakage in dev before it's merged > > to master. > > > > It would be ideal if you could do a switch when master and dev are > > in sync, and just copy the state from master. > > Hi, > > I think that your approach could be generally valid but for this use case I'm > against because of the following: > > 1) The approach is valid in cases like our github PRs and the bot that > approves the commit. In this case, who moves the commit between branches does > not know if the scan has been done or not. > > 2) I don't see the reason to scan against something that we don't know if will > be the same in master branch > > 3) We are not doing a similar approach for ::gentoo so I don't see why do this > for GURU since, after all, it is an overlay > > 4) Packages in master are supposed to be tested at least from 2 different > people (who made the commit in dev and who moves the commit to master) so it > means less bugspam > This is not how GURU works. The dev->master merges are always fast- forward, and are only reviewed to prevent malicious actions. -- Best regards, Michał Górny