From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92711384B4 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54B9821C05F; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA4DDE08DF for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.102.247.223] (unknown [184.151.127.223]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E48E340817 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: automatically mailing people on pkgcheck problems with their packages References: <20151206153611.2a132d2c.mgorny@gentoo.org> <566454D9.6050704@gentoo.org> <20151206170033.21fe1bcd.mgorny@gentoo.org> <56645DCC.1090202@gentoo.org> From: Ian Stakenvicius In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 12:26:59 -0500 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org 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 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13B143) X-Archives-Salt: ed05c0f3-fe48-4ead-894d-7ea9389b3507 X-Archives-Hash: 2ae37413310bfb219d2adf223ae95ea2 > On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >=20 >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:= >> On 12/06/2015 11:00 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Of course. Add the commit author, too: I want to know if I break someon= e >>>> else's package. >>>=20 >>> So far, can't do that since we don't know which commit exactly broke. I >>> don't want to do any heuristics that could blame the wrong person. >>=20 >> Is the testing performed per-push rather than per-commit? Either way, I >> would like to get a notification that something broke, even if it wasn't >> my commit at fault. Just change the word "blame" to "alert" so no one >> feels slandered. >=20 > ++ >=20 > This isn't about shaming people. It is about alerting that the tree > is broken. I think we can agree that when packages don't build it is > a problem, and it won't fix itself. >=20 > How many commits typically go by in-between checks? Would it be > practical to just alert any commit author in that time range? Sure, > it would generate a bit of spam, but: >=20 > 1. Better to get problems fixed sooner than later. > 2. The overall improved attention to QA will hopefully reduce the > error rate and thus make the number of emails regulate themselves. >=20 > One of the first steps towards reducing errors is to increase their visibi= lity. >=20 Couldn't we just alert the people listed in the metadata for the packages af= fected? Even if it wasn't them that caused the breakage, aren't they ultima= tely responsible for making sure the package works? They could ping the act= ual committer...