Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion
Hello, Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 05:35:44PM +0100 schrieb Edouard Klein: > Am Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 07:56:48PM + schrieb Skyler Ferris: > > I'd like to do my part to keep the project in a good state. However, I > > am new to interacting with large FLOSS projects so I'm nervous about > > causing more problems than I solve if I just start doing things. > Same here. no need to be nervous! I would suggest to just start somewhere and learn by doing. For patches, anyway the committer takes the final responsibility; so if you can just add, for instance, "I use this package and it works for me" this will be a useful point. And do not be afraid to make mistakes; I have been taking part in Guix for a long time now, and of course make mistakes from time to time. That happens, and they can be corrected if they occur. What I find important is to be upfront about them, and to ask for help if needed. Andreas
Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion
Skyler Ferris writes: > On 2/6/24 05:39, Steve George wrote: >> I agreed to organise some 'patch review' online sessions in the next couple >> of >> weeks. >> >> Organising a basic process is a good topic for that online session. For >> example, elsewhere in the thread someone mentions some tags we could use >> consistently so maintainers can find patches that have been reviewed easily. >> It >> would be great to agree those - try them for a bit - and document them in a >> 'howto' so that everyone uses the same process. > Have these been announced somewhere yet (eg, with url & exact time)? If > not will being subscribed to the help-guix list and/or checking the Guix > blog be sufficient to receive notification? As someone who has sent > patches in the past and intends to continue sending more in the future, > I'd like to do my part to keep the project in a good state. However, I > am new to interacting with large FLOSS projects so I'm nervous about > causing more problems than I solve if I just start doing things. Same here.
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Andreas Enge writes: > I see a few "Failed to process revision", for instance here: >https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/68778 > While I am not sure why, these look like transient (?) build failures, > at least failures not related to the patch in question. What is there to do? Long term it would be nice for Guile to segfault less, in the short term though sending the patch again will trigger the data service to try again. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Quoting Andreas Enge (2024-02-09 15:30:44) > Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:53:59PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR: > > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25) > > > Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > > > > Can I safely close it?! > > > > > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication > > > of effort and the original patch got ignored. > > > > > > It looks like the issue has been closed now. > > Not me! > > As the old German saying goes, "two idiots, one idea" :-) > I also immediately jumped to this easy looking patch, came to the same > conclusion as you and closed it. This is a lot of review work for a patch > where there is nothing to do... > > Actually the next patch I tried to apply was also already there, and the > committer had just forgotten to close the issue. *erf*… people! I’m "reviewing" `[bug#68997] gnu: lightning: Update to 2.2.3`… please find another one! -- Tanguy
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hello, I see a few "Failed to process revision", for instance here: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/68778 While I am not sure why, these look like transient (?) build failures, at least failures not related to the patch in question. What is there to do? Andreas
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Am Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:53:59PM +0100 schrieb Tanguy LE CARROUR: > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25) > > Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > > > Can I safely close it?! > > > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication > > of effort and the original patch got ignored. > > > > It looks like the issue has been closed now. > Not me! As the old German saying goes, "two idiots, one idea" :-) I also immediately jumped to this easy looking patch, came to the same conclusion as you and closed it. This is a lot of review work for a patch where there is nothing to do... Actually the next patch I tried to apply was also already there, and the committer had just forgotten to close the issue. Andreas
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 14:44:25) > Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > > Can I safely close it?! > > Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication > of effort and the original patch got ignored. > > It looks like the issue has been closed now. Not me! Regards. -- Tanguy
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Tanguy LE CARROUR writes: > Hi Chris, > > First of, thanks (again) for everything that you’ve done with QA! > It looks great! > > > Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 11:44:11) >> Let me know if you have any comments or questions! > > Unfortunately, I have some (stupid) questions! > > I decided to give it a try and I picked at random a patch that > was supposed to be an easy one: > > ``` > [bug#68590] gnu: notmuch: update to version 0.38.2 > ``` > > It’s mark as "green" *ie* important checks passing, but… > it does not even apply?! Actually, it’s for a good reason: > the exact same patch has been applied 2 weeks ago by > Nicolas Goaziou as #9b65b60b97. > > The patch is still open on Debbugs. I guess it should be closed, right? > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68590 > > I guess it got is "green" status on QA before other patch made it to > master. > > Can I safely close it?! Yep, this unfortunately looks like a case where there was a duplication of effort and the original patch got ignored. It looks like the issue has been closed now. QA can spot when patches don't apply, but it doesn't test for that regularly at the moment. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hi Chris, First of, thanks (again) for everything that you’ve done with QA! It looks great! Quoting Christopher Baines (2024-02-09 11:44:11) > Let me know if you have any comments or questions! Unfortunately, I have some (stupid) questions! I decided to give it a try and I picked at random a patch that was supposed to be an easy one: ``` [bug#68590] gnu: notmuch: update to version 0.38.2 ``` It’s mark as "green" *ie* important checks passing, but… it does not even apply?! Actually, it’s for a good reason: the exact same patch has been applied 2 weeks ago by Nicolas Goaziou as #9b65b60b97. The patch is still open on Debbugs. I guess it should be closed, right? https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=68590 I guess it got is "green" status on QA before other patch made it to master. Can I safely close it?! Regards. -- Tanguy
Re: QA is back, who wants to review patches?
On Fri, Feb 09 2024, Christopher Baines wrote:
> After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, the
> bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back submitting
> builds for packages changed by patches.
>
> QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) as having
> been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can do this
> via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as reviewed") on
> the page for each issue to help you do this.
>
> I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no burden
> on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
> knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
> own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
> questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think the
> changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue accordingly.
>
> When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display them in
> dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those with
> commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging the
> patches if indeed they are ready.
>
> Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
This is great, thank you.
Re: On the road to the next release: testing the installer
Hi Guix, Here is the report of my first attempt at reinstalling Guix System in a rally long time! Quoting Tanguy LE CARROUR (2024-02-06 13:52:31) > Quoting Tanguy LE CARROUR (2024-02-06 08:31:39) > > In order to test the latest installer, I went to the "latest download" > > page [1] and clicked on "x86_64-linux" under "GNU Guix System on Linux" > > and ended up on an error page [2]: > > […] > > Is it the ISO that has to be tested? How can I download it? > > I guess that part of the answer to my question is "build it yourself" [1], > right?! > > [1]: > https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/html_node/Building-the-Installation-Image.html As I was reinstalling my computer at work and I was in a bit of a hurry, I had created 2 USB stick installers: - 1 that I built myself from the latest master; and - 1 that I downloaded from the website for the previous release. I went for the full disk encryption everything on one partition! I selected no Window Manager as I’m a happy Sway user and it’s not in the list. The installer completed successfully and I rebooted. Grub asked me right away my passphrase and… it did not work! After several attempts, I figured out that the keyboard layout was apparently set to `qwerty` even though I had selected `bépo AFNOR` during the configuration. When I eventually typed my passphrase in `querty` Grub started and boot my system and… I had to type the passphrase a second time, but, fortunately this time in `bépo`! I checked the `config.scm` and the layout was properly set in the bootloader declaration. I then reconfigured my `guix home` and logged back and… the script that runs on first login failed for `XDG_RUNTIME_DIR` was not set! I checked and `/run/user/1000` was not even present. I was already 1 hour in and running late on something I had to do for a client so… I decided to re-install with the installer from the previous release! So much for testing the latest installer! I ran into the same keyboard layout with Grub, so I guess it’s a bug that is not specific to the new installer. I than reconfigured my system and my home and… *voilà*, I was back… home! So, the `XDG_RUNTIME_DIR` error might be related to the current installer!? I’ll definitively give it another try, but in less… stressful circumstances. I’ll dedicate a spare disk and use my Thinkpad as I can easily swap the disk without having to unscrew everything. If this setup is as convenient as I think it should be, than I can dedicate some time more often to testing the installer. That’s all for me for today! Regards, -- Tanguy
QA is back, who wants to review patches?
Hey!
After substitute availability taking a bit of a dive recently, the
bordeaux build farm has finally caught back up and QA is back submitting
builds for packages changed by patches.
QA also has a feature to allow easily tagging patches (issues) as having
been reviewed and ready to merge (reviewed-looks-good). You can do this
via sending an email and QA has a form ("Mark patches as reviewed") on
the page for each issue to help you do this.
I'd encourage anyone and everyone to review patches, there's no burden
on you to spot every problem and you don't need any special
knowledge. You just need to not be involved (so you can't review your
own patches) and take a good look at the changes, mentioning any
questions that you have or problems that you spot. If you think the
changes look good to be merged, you can tag the issue accordingly.
When issues are tagged as reviewed-looks-good, QA will display them in
dark green at the top of the list of patches, so it's on those with
commit access to prioritise looking at these issues and merging the
patches if indeed they are ready.
Let me know if you have any comments or questions!
Thanks,
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
