FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-27-2008, 04:58 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1

New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working

Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.

Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.

-Dan
 
Old 08-27-2008, 06:03 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>
> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>
> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>
> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.

Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
 
Old 08-27-2008, 06:22 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>>
>> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
>> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
>> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
>> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
>> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
>> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>>
>> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
>> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
>> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>>
>> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
>> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.
>
> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
>
> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
>

Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).
 
Old 08-27-2008, 06:26 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>>>
>>> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
>>> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
>>> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
>>> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
>>> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
>>> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>>>
>>> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
>>> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
>>> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>>>
>>> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
>>> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.
>>
>> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
>> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
>>
>> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
>>
>
> Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
> packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
> with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
> of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).

Wouldn't this be overkill? Sometimes a package would want signoffs,
other times you may not. And the signoff links don't show up for
packages not in testing anyway. And what happens when packages in
extra get thrown into testing? I guess it looks like a can of worms
not worth opening to me.

-Dan
 
Old 08-27-2008, 06:36 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>> too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1
>>>>
>>>> New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
>>>> was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
>>>> 1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
>>>> 2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
>>>> bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
>>>> 3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working
>>>>
>>>> Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
>>>> still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
>>>> logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
>>>> signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
>>> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
>>>
>>
>> Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
>> packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
>> with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
>> of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).
>
> Wouldn't this be overkill? Sometimes a package would want signoffs,
> other times you may not. And the signoff links don't show up for
> packages not in testing anyway. And what happens when packages in
> extra get thrown into testing? I guess it looks like a can of worms
> not worth opening to me.

That's a good point. You're talking about skipping testing altogether.

Hmm, I'd have to think on this. Even though man-pages is not system
critical, I like the concept of preserving the integrity of [core].

I think, if we all start using the web-based signoffs a little more,
this might become a quicker process. I was able to do a scan down the
list and signoff on a few very quickly.
 
Old 08-27-2008, 07:27 PM
Eric Belanger
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:


On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:

too slow. now please signoff 3.08-1


New proposal here. For packages that meet the following criteria (this
was on-the-fly, I really don't think it needs to be set in stone):
1. Frequent releases (anything 2 weeks or quicker)
2. Little to no system impact if broken (initscripts would not fit the
bill, for instance, but man-pages are not critical)
3. Can be easily verified by the maintainer to be working

Can we skip the signoff procedure? The maintainer is of course free to
still ask for it, but it would keep our pipeline from getting
logjammed by stuff that really isn't in need of serious testing.

Maybe just have list of packages in core we agree can be moved without
signoffs, such as man-pages, tzdata, etc.


Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.



Dusty: Do you think it would be possible to add a DB table for
packages excluded from signoffs? If we can do this, and integrate it
with the web interface for signoffs, I can manage the actual contents
of the table myself (or, well, anyone with django admin access can).


Wouldn't this be overkill? Sometimes a package would want signoffs,
other times you may not. And the signoff links don't show up for
packages not in testing anyway. And what happens when packages in
extra get thrown into testing? I guess it looks like a can of worms
not worth opening to me.


That's a good point. You're talking about skipping testing altogether.

Hmm, I'd have to think on this. Even though man-pages is not system
critical, I like the concept of preserving the integrity of [core].


I wonder how many packages would fit in the 3 conditions suggested by Dan.
If only a few packages would be in the exception list, then it won't
really solve the logjam problem. So we might decide to still signoff all
core packages just to be consistent. I believe the logjam is mostly due
to packages that very few of us use (or know how to test) so the number of
potential testers is limited.




I think, if we all start using the web-based signoffs a little more,
this might become a quicker process. I was able to do a scan down the
list and signoff on a few very quickly.




Is the web-based signoff testing completed? Then it should be used for
signoff.



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 
Old 08-27-2008, 07:58 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> I think, if we all start using the web-based signoffs a little more,
>> this might become a quicker process. I was able to do a scan down the
>> list and signoff on a few very quickly.
>
> Is the web-based signoff testing completed? Then it should be used for
> signoff.

Not sure, I just decided today I was going to use it regularly, and
still reply to the emails. I submitted a FR to dusty regarding some
things, but all-in-all it seems to work as intended.
 
Old 08-27-2008, 08:18 PM
"Dusty Phillips"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

2008/8/27 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Eric Belanger
> <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>> I think, if we all start using the web-based signoffs a little more,
>>> this might become a quicker process. I was able to do a scan down the
>>> list and signoff on a few very quickly.
>>
>> Is the web-based signoff testing completed? Then it should be used for
>> signoff.
>
> Not sure, I just decided today I was going to use it regularly, and
> still reply to the emails. I submitted a FR to dusty regarding some
> things, but all-in-all it seems to work as intended.
>

I think it works, its pretty simple code, I'll do Aaron's requested
stuff some day when I don't have four different companies asking me to
do paid work for them too. ;-)

Dusty
 
Old 08-28-2008, 08:59 AM
"James Rayner"
 
Default man-pages 3.08-1)

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I thought about this in the beginning, but it's easier to make a
> blanket rule than to start adding exceptions.
>
> I'm interested in hearing opinions on this.
>

Maybe just common sense while erring on the side of caution?

I think it's pretty clear that kernel26 needs one, and a minor bump to
manpages doesnt. And for anything in the middle where there's doubt,
have one.

I know I'm guilty of forgetting to do signoffs for netcfg, but
fortunately nobody noticed

James
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:37 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org