Hi all; Yeah, the ping was pretty much implied - but it's harder to cope with because I can only ping the people I know on IRC. We don't have a strict rule matching IRC nicknames to maintainers or even projects, and I cannot join every single IRC chat room on irc.gnome.org.
I think the ping is a "best effort"; if I can't manage to do that in 30 seconds then I'll just revert and file a bug instead. I want to send this to desktop-devel-list and try and recruit more people to be build sheriffs. What do you think? Ciao, Emmanuele. On 18 December 2015 at 15:04, Javier Jardón <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 December 2015 at 18:29, Matthias Clasen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi all; >>> >>> I've been meaning to discuss this with the release team for a while, >>> and I probably already annoyed a bunch of people on IRC, so here goes. >>> >>> I'd like the r-t to give its blessing to volunteers that decide to act >>> as "build sheriffs" on Continuous builds. If we exclude the issues >>> with the build machine itself throwing a fit — something that usually >>> gets fixed by Colin kicking it — the vast majority of build breakages >>> come from GNOME projects issues. >>> >>> What usually happens when a build goes into perma-red (i.e. it keeps >>> failing over the same component) is that somebody on the #testable IRC >>> channel (usually me or Colin Walters) tags the module inside the >>> Continous manifest, opens a bug, and hopes that a fix get applied and >>> communicated on the channel so that the tag gets reverted. >>> >>> This is not enough, and it does not raise the bar in keeping >>> Continuous (and thus GNOME) building. It actually lowers it a fair >>> bit, to the effective point that *nobody* cares about Continuous >>> builds. >>> >>> I want this to change. I want to be able to revert failing commits on >>> the offending modules, if they are hosted on GNOME infrastructure, if >>> they fail for more than N hours, and *then* open a bug about it. >>> Ideally, I want to tag only modules that are *not* hosted on GNOME >>> infrastructure, as they are beyond our control and commit >>> capabilities. In short, I want to ensure that GNOME maintainers become >>> a bit more proactive in giving a crap about their modules breaking on >>> something that is not their own computers. >>> >>> This obviously will need to be discussed on d-d-l, but I'd like to get >>> some feedback from a limited audience, and hopefully have the release >>> team backing this initiative — especially in the hope that we can have >>> more than one build sheriff, to cover more time zones, and avoid >>> perma-red build failures going on for more than two or three hours, >>> instead of half a day. >>> >> >> This sounds ok to me - I think a policy of pinging the relevant >> maintainer on irc first before reverting is a good idea (I know I >> break things occasionally, and would appreciate a ping if I don't see >> the breakage myself). I'd be happy to help out with this as well > > Sorry for the late response. > > I'd like to add if ping is not possible, it would be ok to me to > revert the offending commit and send an email to the maintainer of the > module explaining why (and probably to the author of the commit as > well) > > Regards, > Javier Jardón -- https://www.bassi.io [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] _______________________________________________ [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
