[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even th
From: |
宋文武 |
Subject: |
bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that) |
Date: |
Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:29:00 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> writes:
>> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every 7
>> days, and remove a package if it still fail to build in 90 days?
>
> The first part looks reasonable to me (though I would decrease 7 days
> to daily or even hourly, as I don't see a point in the delay), but how
> does the second part (removing packages) make sense at all?
>
Oh, to be more clear I didn't mean automatically remove a package, but
notify guix-devel to consider removing one if its "fail to build" issue
had existed for a long time and no one care.
> [...]
>
> Instead, what about:
>
>> Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every
>> hour, and revert the commit(s) causing the new build failures if they
>> haven't been fixed in a week.
Yes, automatically report bugs would be helpful. And I'll leave the
reverting rights to committers, which usually need some research and
maybe risky.
> [...]
> Expanding upon this a bit more:
>
> * Expecting that people fix build failures of X when updating X seems
> reasonable to me, and I think this is not in dispute.
>
> * Expecting that people using X fix build failures of X or risk the
> package X being deleted when someone else changed a dependency Y of
> X seems unreasonable to me. More generally, I am categorically
> opposed to:
>
> ‘If you change something and it breaks something else, you should
> leave fixing the something else to someone (unless you want to
> fix it yourself).’
>
> (I can think of some situations where this is a good thing, but not
> in general and in particular not in this Guix situation.)
>
> I mean, I don't know about you, but for me it fails the categorical
> imperative and the so-called Golden Rule.
I agree. Well sometimes if breaks are overlooked by me, then it's very
welcome for other to give me a hand.
Thanks.
- bug#65391: People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that, (continued)
- bug#65391: People need to report failing builds even, Andy Tai, 2023/08/27
- Message not available
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that), Maxime Devos, 2023/08/29
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that), Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/08/29
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that), Maxime Devos, 2023/08/29
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that), Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/08/29
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that), Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide, 2023/08/30
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that), Maxime Devos, 2023/08/30
- bug#65391: Acknowledgement (People need to report failing builds even though we have ci.guix.gnu.org for that),
宋文武 <=