Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

JFYI, I released dupload 2.11.0 with support for the mentioned
transitions check hook. Have not received any complaints (yet? :).

On Sun, 2024-01-14 at 22:06:46 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-01-14 at 19:35:40 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Perfect, thanks. I've force pushed the new changes to the previous
> > branch. How about then the following output?
> > 
> > ,---
> > Warning: Source package barnowl is part of ongoing transitions:
> > 
> >   auto-perl perl-5.38
> > 
> 
> Was wondering now whether it would be better to linkify the list of
> transitions, such as:
> 
> ,---
> Warning: Source package barnowl is part of ongoing transitions:
> 
>   
>   
> 
> […]
> `---
> 
> Although that seems a bit more noisy, but provides more context. I'm
> not sure though how stable those URLs should be considered to be.

In the end went with full URLs, like above.

> > If the upload does not solve issues caused by these transitions, then it
> > might disrupt them by adding delays or entangling them. For more 
> > information,
> > please read:
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > Note: If you are aware of this and do not want to be warned, you can disable
> > this hook from the config file, set the one-off environment variable
> > DUPLOAD_SKIP_TRANSITION_CHECK=1, or alternatively you can reply to the
> > following prompt.
> 
> (I think I'll be adding some generic way to skip specific hooks,
> because this is a common pattern among them, something like
> --skip-hooks=a,b and DUPLOAD_SKIP_HOOKS=a,b.)

I implemented this too.

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Holger Levsen]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 10:06:44PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Warning: Source package barnowl is part of ongoing transitions:
>   
>   
> (I think I'll be adding some generic way to skip specific hooks,
> because this is a common pattern among them, something like
> --skip-hooks=a,b and DUPLOAD_SKIP_HOOKS=a,b.)
> > Continue anyway? (yes/NO) 
 
/me likes!

Though I'm a dput user. :) So I also applause sorting this out with
dupload first and then filing wishbugs for dput & dput-ng!


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

The devel is in the details.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Sun, 2024-01-14 at 19:35:40 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Perfect, thanks. I've force pushed the new changes to the previous
> branch. How about then the following output?
> 
> ,---
> Warning: Source package barnowl is part of ongoing transitions:
> 
>   auto-perl perl-5.38
> 

Was wondering now whether it would be better to linkify the list of
transitions, such as:

,---
Warning: Source package barnowl is part of ongoing transitions:

  
  

[…]
`---

Although that seems a bit more noisy, but provides more context. I'm
not sure though how stable those URLs should be considered to be.

> If the upload does not solve issues caused by these transitions, then it
> might disrupt them by adding delays or entangling them. For more information,
> please read:
> 
>   
> 
> Note: If you are aware of this and do not want to be warned, you can disable
> this hook from the config file, set the one-off environment variable
> DUPLOAD_SKIP_TRANSITION_CHECK=1, or alternatively you can reply to the
> following prompt.
> 

(I think I'll be adding some generic way to skip specific hooks,
because this is a common pattern among them, something like
--skip-hooks=a,b and DUPLOAD_SKIP_HOOKS=a,b.)

> Continue anyway? (yes/NO) 
> Ok, aborting the upload.
> 
> `---

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Sun, 2024-01-14 at 19:12:03 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 14-01-2024 18:46, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I think that would be great, I guess the message from the hook could
> > give some very basic and generic guidance, and point to this page for
> > more in-depth explanation of what to do, what else to check etc. But in
> > any case an initial version sounds good, as that can always be tuned,
> > or extended/improved later on. :)
> 
> Initial version. Please consider the name too, moving now is easier than
> later:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/TransitionUploadHook

Perfect, thanks. I've force pushed the new changes to the previous
branch. How about then the following output?

,---
Warning: Source package barnowl is part of ongoing transitions:

  auto-perl perl-5.38

If the upload does not solve issues caused by these transitions, then it
might disrupt them by adding delays or entangling them. For more information,
please read:

  

Note: If you are aware of this and do not want to be warned, you can disable
this hook from the config file, set the one-off environment variable
DUPLOAD_SKIP_TRANSITION_CHECK=1, or alternatively you can reply to the
following prompt.

Continue anyway? (yes/NO) 
Ok, aborting the upload.

`---

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Paul Gevers]

Hi

On 14-01-2024 18:46, Guillem Jover wrote:

I think that would be great, I guess the message from the hook could
give some very basic and generic guidance, and point to this page for
more in-depth explanation of what to do, what else to check etc. But in
any case an initial version sounds good, as that can always be tuned,
or extended/improved later on. :)


Initial version. Please consider the name too, moving now is easier than 
later:

https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/TransitionUploadHook

Paul


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Sun, 2024-01-14 at 18:22:16 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 14-01-2024 17:43, Guillem Jover wrote:
> >https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions
> > 
> > but it looks like that one is targeted more to maintainers that start
> > or drive the transitions instead of someone that might upload a
> > package which is part or affected by that transition?
> 
> Indeed. I had the same idea when I replied earlier, but I think we'd need a
> new (wiki) page for this. If we happen to agree here, I'm fine with creating
> an initial version.

I think that would be great, I guess the message from the hook could
give some very basic and generic guidance, and point to this page for
more in-depth explanation of what to do, what else to check etc. But in
any case an initial version sounds good, as that can always be tuned,
or extended/improved later on. :)

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Paul Gevers]

Hi,

On 14-01-2024 17:43, Guillem Jover wrote:

   https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions

but it looks like that one is targeted more to maintainers that start
or drive the transitions instead of someone that might upload a
package which is part or affected by that transition?


Indeed. I had the same idea when I replied earlier, but I think we'd 
need a new (wiki) page for this. If we happen to agree here, I'm fine 
with creating an initial version.


Paul


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Sun, 2024-01-14 at 10:22:21 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 10-01-2024 02:23, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I've had for a while a new hook for dupload that adds a transitions
> > check for Debian hosts, for sourceful uploads targeting unstable (to
> > avoid disrupting buildd or porter uploads, or uninteresting suites).
> > I've just finished polishing it, and the main lingering question I've
> > had all along has been whether you think this would actually be useful
> > and/or desired at all, see below.
> > 
> > The hook is currently using
> > https://release.debian.org/transitions/export/packages.yaml, and
> > prompting in case that source package is part of any ongoing
> > transition.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> > I wondered also whether checking
> > https://ftp-master.debian.org/transitions.yaml would be useful,
> > but I'm not sure whether that is or has ever been used?
> 
> It still works, but it's hardly used. I do have some vague ideas to use it
> again in the future, but that's not going to happen soon I guess.

Ok, then, I might leave this as a comment reference as a potential
future source in case this ever gets used.

> > So I guess my questions would be whether you think this is helpful or
> > useful at all?
> 
> Yes, I do.

Ok, great! :)

> > If so, whether the criteria is adequate or it needs to
> > be changed? Whether this should be a prompt, or maybe only an info or
> > warning? And any other comment or suggestion you might have!
> 
> I'm mostly wondering if the information shown is enough to help people. I'm
> actually surprised how many people don't know how transitions work. What is
> your opinion on the length of the text you could provide? Maybe a link to a
> wiki page with more info particularly for this case?

Ah, right, having a longer description and an external reference would
actually be in line with other similar notices such as:

  https://git.dpkg.org/cgit/dpkg/dupload.git/tree/hooks/debian-source-only#n73
  https://git.dpkg.org/cgit/dpkg/dupload.git/tree/hooks/debian-security-auth#n23

If you have some proposed wording, I'll gladly incorporate that,
otherwise I'll try to come up with something and post it here for
review, with a reference to at least:

  https://release.debian.org/transitions/

and perhaps to:

  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions

but it looks like that one is targeted more to maintainers that start
or drive the transitions instead of someone that might upload a
package which is part or affected by that transition?

> Maybe Sebastian can comment on how often he sees interfering uploads to
> judge if it should be a warning or a prompt. If you make this only a
> warning, what are the options of the uploader, canceling?

Hmm, right, just a warning would probably not be very helpful, and if
it gets a pause (with no prompt) then in effect that's kind of a prompt
anyway as you can always Ctrl-C or similar. So probably a prompt might
be the best option, but it's not clear whether that will end up being
very annoying. Probably it would need some easy way to disarm it, say
an env var or similar, instead of requiring to change the config.

> PS: if you're happy with this, should we file wish list bugs against dput
> and dput-ng too?

I think that would be nice, once the above details are more clear. :)

Thanks,
Guillem

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Guillem

On 10-01-2024 02:23, Guillem Jover wrote:

I've had for a while a new hook for dupload that adds a transitions
check for Debian hosts, for sourceful uploads targeting unstable (to
avoid disrupting buildd or porter uploads, or uninteresting suites).
I've just finished polishing it, and the main lingering question I've
had all along has been whether you think this would actually be useful
and/or desired at all, see below.

The hook is currently using
https://release.debian.org/transitions/export/packages.yaml, and
prompting in case that source package is part of any ongoing
transition.


Cool.


I wondered also whether checking
https://ftp-master.debian.org/transitions.yaml would be useful,
but I'm not sure whether that is or has ever been used?


It still works, but it's hardly used. I do have some vague ideas to use 
it again in the future, but that's not going to happen soon I guess.



So I guess my questions would be whether you think this is helpful or
useful at all?


Yes, I do.


If so, whether the criteria is adequate or it needs to
be changed? Whether this should be a prompt, or maybe only an info or
warning? And any other comment or suggestion you might have!


I'm mostly wondering if the information shown is enough to help people. 
I'm actually surprised how many people don't know how transitions work. 
What is your opinion on the length of the text you could provide? Maybe 
a link to a wiki page with more info particularly for this case?


Maybe Sebastian can comment on how often he sees interfering uploads to 
judge if it should be a warning or a prompt. If you make this only a 
warning, what are the options of the uploader, canceling?


Paul

PS: if you're happy with this, should we file wish list bugs against 
dput and dput-ng too?


OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#1060367: release.debian.org: RFC: Transitions check for dupload?

[Guillem Jover]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Hi!

I've had for a while a new hook for dupload that adds a transitions
check for Debian hosts, for sourceful uploads targeting unstable (to
avoid disrupting buildd or porter uploads, or uninteresting suites).
I've just finished polishing it, and the main lingering question I've
had all along has been whether you think this would actually be useful
and/or desired at all, see below.

The hook is currently using
https://release.debian.org/transitions/export/packages.yaml, and
prompting in case that source package is part of any ongoing
transition. I wondered also whether checking
https://ftp-master.debian.org/transitions.yaml would be useful,
but I'm not sure whether that is or has ever been used?

You can see the commit at
.

For a package currently under transitions such as dart, the hook
output and interaction could be right now:

,---
Source dart is part of ongoing transitions:
  auto-tinyxml2 boost1.83
Continue anyway? (yes/NO)
Ok, aborting upload.
`---

So I guess my questions would be whether you think this is helpful or
useful at all? If so, whether the criteria is adequate or it needs to
be changed? Whether this should be a prompt, or maybe only an info or
warning? And any other comment or suggestion you might have!

Thanks,
Guillem