Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

[Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5101 bytes --]

21.08.2013 17:38, Wyatt Epp пишет:
> Fundamentally, I see this as a problem of tooling.


I think that no tool can cover all cases of checking that software
WORKS. I mean - in generic, for all kinds of software. You can guarantee
if it builds, if it follow some QA rules about CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/whatever,
but there is only one 100% way to guarantee that software works - run
and do something useful :-).

Yeah, i know about testsuites, that can help in that case. Unfortunately:

1) they do not cover all cases, but that's not so important;
2) often they are badly broken;
3) not every program carries test suite.

So, we stuck at automation in run-time checks right at the beginning :-).

But yeah, we could automate build-time checks, surely.


> 
> I'd like to point out something that jumped out to me as a red flag
> earlier (not to pick on you specifically, Tom; this is just the
> cleanest example I saw), and turn it into an example:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Well, they are listed there; but it's quite some work to actually go
>> through that list, that is, manually check the bugs of ~2000 packages
>> as well as file a STABLEREQ bug, takes quite a while...
>>
> This right here is a real problem.  Any time you're talking about
> doing anything on this scale "manually", you've already lost the
> battle.  You need a tool to minimise the overhead of time and
> cognitive load.  What would that tool look like?  Think about the
> steps involved and how you can reduce them to only the parts that
> absolutely require decisions on your part.
> 
>>> At least in the areas I usually work, I have found a combination of
>>> the automatic stabilisation requests and imlate have definitely cut
>>> back on the bitrot.
>>
>> A single unimportant bug can prevent the automatic STABLEREQ bug from
>> getting filed; as for imlate, not everyone seems to know that tool, not
>> everyone seems to run it. Attention for some stabilizations is lost...
>>
> First off, why do developers not know about the tools?  How can this
> be addressed?  For a start, I'd suggest making sure the tools are at
> least mentioned in the docs.  Somewhere other than the amd64 Arch
> Testing guide from 2006. [1] That's the only concrete (i.e. actually
> in the DOCS rather than the ML archives) documentation I've found so
> far, and it only references the file, rather than the tool.  Maybe in
> the devmanual Tools Reference? [2]
> 

Good point, i agree.

> But, imlate is a good example of a tool that could ease the time cost
> of grindy crap.  You showed before that it can get an ordinary count
> bounded on n days.  That's handy, but only a little.  Build out:
> - How many of those stablereq bugs reference versions no longer in the
> tree?  Those can probably get closed.
> - How many have newer STABLE versions in the tree in the same slot?
> Probably fine to close those, too.
> - Of the remaining, how many have patches or ebuilds attached?  Those
> may be solved problems waiting for closure; shortlist them.
> - How many are packages with newer versions that have been in the tree
> for >30 days?  Consider changing the target version, then.
> - How many have open blockers, and what are those blockers (w/link and
> summary)?  Scan for low-hanging fruit jumping out in that list.
> - Get views by category; are there categories where updates are more
> important?  Things in @system, and things with security concerns
> (stuff in net-*) should probably get higher priority; games...
> probably less so.
> - Are there bugs with certain keywords in the body that should raise
> priority?  Things like "security" or "overflow" might be good
> candidates.
> - Are there bugs with certain keywords in the body that indicate it'll
> be really easy to decide? e.g. "trivial" or "minor" might turn up some
> of those super-small version bumps that you pretty much know aren't
> going to affect stability.
> 
> These are just examples off the top of my head, and by no means
> bulletproof, but these are in the class of improvements that have ROI
> because they reduce a task that previously took developer time to one
> that takes CPU time.  CPU time is essentially free compared to the
> value of dev time.

That's what i called constuctive criticism. Congratulations :-)

> And I'm not saying more recruiting shouldn't happen, but relying on it
> is no better than hoping at $deity for bugs to close themselves. ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Wyatt
> 
> [0] Okay, maybe in the "glory days" when we were higher up on
> Distrowatch and thing were really kicking. (I know, I know, "DW isn't
> representative", but really? Sabayon is doing better than we are,
> now?)
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/tests/index.xml?part=1&chap=2
> [2] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/tools-reference/index.html
> 


-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]