Re: Changes to the branching/commit policy

[Christopher Baines]

John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

>>> Or does the section about branch building for once patches are pushed
>>> to a branch on Savannah?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're asking here.
>
> I'm confused myself over my wording, but I remember what I was trying
> to get at:
>
> Currently QA doesn't build patches if they cause a large number of
> rebuilds correct? So for building a branch that requires this, will
> that only happen on Cuirass with a new jobspec for the branch? Or will
> this be addressed through changes to how QA builds? (Maybe this
> answered below actually.)

Yep, for issues there's a cap of 300 builds per system.

QA does build the branch at the front of the queue to be merged though,
currently that's ruby-team [1].

1: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/

>>> Does that mean pushing to a branch should follow the same 1-2 week
>>> review allowing QA builds? I guess patch series are always built
>>> together on QA but wondering if there is anything else to be aware of
>>> or needs mentioning to keep things tidy and clear.
>>
>> Those durations mentioned in the commit policy [1] are intended to allow
>> for human review. For QA, it doesn't need to be time based as it can
>> report it's progress. Obviously it does need a bit of time to check
>> things, but I prefer to leave it up to people to assess the changes and
>> any information provided by QA and decide when it's appropriate to push.
>>
>> 1: 
>> <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html#Commit-Policy>
>>
>
> A separate issue which I wanted to get at was about pushing changes to
> any branch on Savannah. Do we expect those to be at the same state as
> anything that would go directly to master, just pending the testing of
> builds basically? So, after the usual review period? Or can those be
> more WIP and not polished yet? I suppose this is for a team/people
> working on a branch to discuss and how it will then be merged to
> master.

The latter. Non-master branches can be in whatever state is useful.

>> On keeping things clear, I think with branches I'm hoping the issue
>> tracker can help with this, which is why there's now a strong
>> requirement to create a guix-patches issue when you want to merge a
>> branch, and use those issues to manage the timing.
>>
>> For those issues, there's currently a convention of using the following
>> title: `Request for merging "XXXX" branch` e.g. [2]. That helps QA find
>> these issues and act accordingly, but of course if someone comes up with
>> a better way of naming these issues, we can just adjust the code in the
>> qa-frontpage.
>>
>
> I see, that's a nice way to then group up discussion if a branch has a
> bunch of separate patch threads. Looks like a good idea!
>
> So, to be concrete, with the mesa patch I just sent,
> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64175> I can open a merge request issue for
> QA to process the branch, once the branch is actually created on
> Savannah? I assume with the pretty trivial version change here I could
> do that to see how the builds go, but I'll hold off pending the thread
> I just started about this branch/team.

Currently QA just builds the branch at the front of the queue, but yes.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature