[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About ignoring problems instead of fixing them

On Thursday 24 December 2009, you wrote:
> I saw that the graphical images weren't available any more so I
> disabled them.

Problem is that you did not disable them. You only silently ignored a 
failure, with the result that you were creating broken images. If I had 
not accidentally caught that now, we would have had a release with broken 

I would not have minded if you'd ignored the failure and at the same time 
informed people of the problem so that it could be looked into and solved 

> From the last discussion I saw fly past, it looks like 
> the lack of graphical images is a known feature.

Yes. They have been disabled on purpose. But the system is supposed to be 
flexible enough to *see* whether or not D-I is building graphical images 
[1] and then excluding those options from the isolinux menu.

But because we've never had that situation before, this was not actually 
implemented 100% on the D-I side.

debian-cd uses the file f3.txt.withgtk to test "do we have graphical or 
not", so D-I should not be including that file if graphical is disabled.

> I'm getting dozens of 
> complaints every time the weekly builds fail these days, so with no
> further information to go on and no warning from the d-i folks I took
> this choice.

There was no warning because it was supposed to work. That means that we 
need a main or bug report to inform us of breakage. Without that there's 
no trigger to fix the problem.

So now we need an extra upload of D-I to fix the problem instead of having 
had the problem fixed shortly after Otavio committed the change to disable 
the graphical images.

> It's getting painful using the daily-built d-i images for the weekly
> testing CDs, as the number of broken builds is very high.

True. Weekly builds are supposed to be built from released D-I images 
instead of daily images. Unfortunately the D-I release manager has been 
unable to get a release out so far.

> I would 
> really *really* like to see d-i properly integrated into the archive
> and uploaded periodically so it can migrate to testing, as we've
> discussed in the past many times. The current situation is a train
> wreck.

This broken record argument from you will not help *at all* (as I've tried 
to explain several times in the past).

Do you really think that when people are unable to get a release going in 
almost a year that "periodic uploads" magically are going to be correct?

If daily builds fail then builds "integrated in the archive" will fail just 
as hard. One solution could be to change the upload script for D-I daily 
images to not upload anything except the log files if a daily build fails.

The real problem is that nobody is monitoring builds, doing any testing or 
fixing any issues on any frequent basis. Not like Joey and I used to do in 
the past.

I currently do not consider myself as the person who monitors things, so I 
only react to concrete reported problems. Even so if I do still seem to 
end up catching and fixing most issues.

BTW, I thought that d-cd simply kept the old images if a build failed for 
an arch, or is that only implemented for daily builds?


[1] There is a difference between a graphical images failing and being 
disabled. The case of graphical images failing while normal images do 
build is not handled, but that is fairly exceptional.

Reply to: