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 1893A139083 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17445E0DA7; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.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 BC5FAE0D91 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:44b8:4197:2800:a37a:5ec1:db17:1e49] (2001-44b8-4197-2800-a37a-5ec1-db17-1e49.static.ipv6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:4197:2800:a37a:5ec1:db17:1e49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kensington) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25F603416E5 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Message-ID: <40c383ef-83ad-20bc-7d9c-dcb74b589a26@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:59:44 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 56ae0b6f-9232-4d2d-9829-11e2b344c4d3 X-Archives-Hash: 5a890720f2e5346a8d8507b009b7166c On 07/25/2017 07:22 AM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > 2. Q: How to make arch testing faster and easier? > > A: - KEYWORDREQ/STABLEREQ bugs not marked as "runtime testing > required" will be automatically tested and keyworded. > > [handwave] automated tinderbox setup would help a lot > to now upfront what fails to built, fails tests. I've had similar thoughts about this and have already been working on some tooling for this. We would need to establish exactly what criteria must be met for an automated test to be considered as successful. Here's a sample report that my tool produces: https://dev.gentoo.org/~kensington/tinderbox/sys-apps/dbus/dbus-1.6.18-r1/df017e14-bd68-47e2-9738-554e7ba1cf10.html In this case, would it be enough that it builds and tests pass? What about the QA issues? Do we need someone to review them to determine if they should block stabilisation, or if they're even a regression or not?