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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> > There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
> > that aren't being kept in sync.  First, if they're not being kept in
> > sync, it increases the number of matching source packages that we need
> > to keep around (which, as has been discussed, is already a problem);
> > second, if you want to update using the testing scripts, you either have
> > to run a separate copy of britney for each arch (time consuming,
> > resource-intensive) or continue processing it as part of the main
> > britney run (we already tread the line in terms of how many archs
> > britney can handle, and using a single britney check for archs that
> > aren't keeping up doesn't give very good results); and third, if
> > failures on non-release archs are not release-critical bugs (which
> > they're not), you don't have any sane measure of bugginess for britney
> > to use in deciding which packages to keep out.

> What about building the scc (or tier 2 as i would say) arches from testing and
> not unstable ? this way you would have the main benefit of testing (no RC
> bugs, no breakage of the day kind of problems). Obviously this means you would
> need some kind of override for per-arch fixes, but preferably these fixes will
> be applied twice, once to the per-arch repo, and then to a new unstable upload
> which fixes the problem. Uploading only to unstable may cause undue delays.

Building against testing instead of against unstable also means you
don't have any of the controls testing is supposed to provide to protect
against uninstallable packages: as soon as you build a new library
package, everything that depends on it is uninstallable.

This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
better options than trying to build out of testing.

> > For these reasons, I think the snapshotting approach is a better option,
> > because it puts the package selection choices directly in the hands of
> > the porters rather than trying to munge the existing testing scripts
> > into something that will make reasonable package selections for you.

> So, why don't you do snapshoting for testing ? Do you not think handling all
> those thousands of packages manually without the automated testing thinhy
> would be not an over-burden for those guys ? 

> You are really just saying that the testing scipts don't scale well, and
> instead of finding a solution to this, you say let's drop a bunch of architecture,
> and make it another-one's problem.

I think we should discuss various solutions to address the needs of
porters involved in non-release archs.  I think trying to run a full
testing infrastructure, or build against testing instead of unstable, is
unlikely to be a good solution for those porters in practice because of
some of the issues that I've pointed out.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: