I apologize for my previous two messages. They are emotionally charged. Let's talk about how we can improve the "process" once I've cooled down a little.
-- jzr On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 14:37, Jiří Zárevúcky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 13:50, Jiri Svoboda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Jakub, > > > > I think we need to consider a few more things. The switch to Meson was a > > big change and IMHO the outcome is overall very good and I am happy > > about it. > > > > I think we regressed in a few more areas, the old build system made it easy > > to look at disassembly and at examine object files. Also what about "make > > check"? I think these are areas that may still need some work. > > > > Yes, it needs more work to reach "full capacity", so to speak. Does > that mean the changes should be held until everyone has checked if > things work to their expectation? That would make sense if people > actually responded to review requests. As far as I can tell, actually > merging the changes is the only way to get reasonable feedback here, > and even then it's months before that feedback happens. > > > > > Also, we are not a professional/commercial software house with paid > > developers and customers. We can afford to fix things later. And in > > general we do and have always done. > > > > Quite to the contary. While our software does not fly airplanes, since we > > *don't* have the paid people who can be tasked with fixing breakages. We > > simply cannot afford to tolerate breakages postponing the fixes for "later" > > (effectively fo somebody else). This will only frustrate the handful > > contributors we have. > > > > Switching to Meson is a massive and fundamental change. You cannot > reasonably expect one person to first make sure everything works > perfectly. Not to mention that the notion of perfection is subjective. > If you want to talk about frustration, consider for a second how > frustrating it is to make changes when there's people who don't care > enough to review changes before they are merged, then wait months, and > then crawl out of woodwork complaining about how it's frustrating > *them* that massive changes they didn't give two shits about aren't > perfect right of the bat. > > > We cannot make exceptions to this rule, be it for desirability of a featre, > > "momentum" of HelenOS camp or anything else. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jiri > > > > > > Jakub > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jiri > > > > > > > > > ---------- Původní e-mail ---------- > > > Od: Vojtech Horky <[email protected]> > > > Komu: HelenOS development mailing list <[email protected]> > > > Datum: 12. 11. 2019 23:35:58 > > > Předmět: [HelenOS-devel] Notes on last CI update > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have updated CI scripts on the CI server and new build just finished. > > > > > > TL;DR: Follows about 5 paragraphs of complaints and shed tears ;-). > > > Ended by brief summary of the last build. > > > > > > First of all, I understand that everyone is working on HelenOS in his > > > spare time but I do not think that should be an excuse for breaking > > > things and creating extra load on others. I acknowledge that I am > > > responsible for ci.helenos.org and that my lack of time caused that it > > > was in such bad shape recently. But at least some things could have > > > been prevented. > > > > > > Please, next time when there is such a big update (I mean things like > > > Meson etc.) it would be nice if someone would contact me in advance. > > > You know, just a short e-mail "hey, could you try this on CI machine > > > before we merge it into mainline so we have seamless transition?". And > > > yes, I am receiving e-mails from GitHub but automated notifications > > > simply got lower priority than normal e-mail. > > > > > > It would be also nice if changes to the build system would be > > > propagated to other repositories too. CI script was broken for about 2 > > > months, the hotfix from 99d248b is not really complete. Not dwelling > > > on the fact that we needed two rounds of e-mails before the problem > > > was even acknowledged. > > > > > > @le-jzr: have you ever tried to run the CI script or you do just > > > search-and-replace when "fixing" it? I understand that it is not a > > > ten-liner any more but we do not have anything better at the moment. > > > Or do we? > > > > > > And this is really not the first time similar thing has happened. > > > Honestly, it just kills my motivation to work on HelenOS. > > > > > > > > > Regarding last build: > > > > > > HelenOS seems to be built okay, tests with bare images are more or > > > less fine too. > > > > > > Some harbours are failing as before, gzx, msim and sycek are broken > > > for all platforms. > > > > > > It seems that building extended images (e.g. HelenOS with binutils) is > > > broken as all tests fail with "command not found". > > > > > > As an improvement, it would be nice if ninja inside CI would not be > > > that smart about parallelism level. The jobs are already running in > > > parallel and running the inner build in parallel too only increases > > > the chances that the build would fail. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > - Vojta > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > HelenOS-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > HelenOS-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > HelenOS-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > HelenOS-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
