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 0A1781384B4 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3137C21C17C; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com (mail-ig0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178]) (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 4561721C178 for ; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igl9 with SMTP id 9so61912073igl.0 for ; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 10:58:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PylvBBD1Ftlou6T8ugYIc6XhB7HeBnwE1ldlrV8O58c=; b=AniUJ0/7OWmDd1/Jd1NtkyMxZMp/qd4eLAMebWbigbmJ3dk5zJeetFkkWtdETzlP0k /KkdWAhkKSe9RAR2gBJer+8Q/ZvVPJ5y3FPvkGsdnKibWjF+DYQgS7mZ9cEN04zhCdAx iiJ9VOTZXwjomlmHvVecTlP6BPzgYC7Hch3ajPSs1v8UA8SpyuI8Dzdh/7vdIjhUPOeZ JnTtIZkuQbEWi9Rh6SCS0jQMAL7dvv55pHM7CZOWaAA5kU5JQ3fZSGwe2AOtW4UifgLV W4W+NNQ03h+iWSSOqZ4JMx1XAvlvSkWpfV+ViPGqgeT9uUfslv+zgp2Cwq1ZSitIfEhw bYZw== 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 X-Received: by 10.50.142.40 with SMTP id rt8mr14266009igb.0.1449428334715; Sun, 06 Dec 2015 10:58:54 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.79.197 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 10:58:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151206153611.2a132d2c.mgorny@gentoo.org> <566454D9.6050704@gentoo.org> <20151206170033.21fe1bcd.mgorny@gentoo.org> <56645DCC.1090202@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:58:54 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lf0Vw4mtN_Y0ixI8eIcGHWC8zZY Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: automatically mailing people on pkgcheck problems with their packages From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 93e5d0b8-e0e7-4fd1-ac89-3e36df065787 X-Archives-Hash: 3676819f349b40dca2bd6f667089793f On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> On Dec 6, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrot= e: >>> On 12/06/2015 11:00 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of course. Add the commit author, too: I want to know if I break some= one >>>>> else's package. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> ++ >> >> 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. >> >> 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: >> >> 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. >> >> One of the first steps towards reducing errors is to increase their visi= bility. >> > > Couldn't we just alert the people listed in the metadata for the packages= affected? Even if it wasn't them that caused the breakage, aren't they ul= timately responsible for making sure the package works? They could ping th= e actual committer... > It is best to give feedback to those who know what they did, not to a bunch of random people who have to puzzle it out. Maybe the toolchain guys change something and 200 packages break. Now, we can all sit and stare at bizarre gcc output for an hour each trying to figure out the cause of some misleading error message, or we could let the toolchain guys know and as soon as they see 200 C-based packages break after committing a toolchain change they're going to know that they're the cause and likely what is going on. I'm not sure if the toolchain team would be better served if they get hit CC'ed on 200 carefully-crafted bug reports either, over the span of a few days as the maintainers catch up on their likely-outdated emails. By all means CC the package maintainers, since they likely do care, but they may not be in the best place to debug a problem that originated in a dependency. If we're talking about sending an email to ~5 committers just do it. If I committed a change to mythtv and perl breaks, I'll probably ignore it. If I committed a change to dar and some backup utility breaks, I'll probably take a closer look. If in a month we're sick and tired of the emails we can always give up, or start beating anybody over the head who doesn't run repoman. --=20 Rich