Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 05:45:02PM +1100, Stuart Prescott wrote: > On 28/11/2022 10:55, Dima Kogan wrote: > > Hi. I've been manually checking the merge requests, and have been > > accepting most of them. There is one thing the janitor does that I don't > > agree with, and I'd be against any automated merging of those patches. > > This is adding Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (=WHATEVER). Such > > dependencies break building of the package on anything other than sid, > > and are thus unhelpful. If you can stop the janitor from making this > > change, that'd probably be good. > > Can you expand on this a bit? There are plenty of packages with B-D on > debhelper-compat (= 13) that are backported to the current stable and > oldstable releases without any changes. I _suppose_ this is their use-case: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/07/msg00304.html I short, Dima maintains apt repos for packages that are used in many distributions and setting compat as 13 or whatever breaks the build for them. But I do agree with you. In debian sid/testing/backporting pov, this does not make any difference. -- Best, Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Hi Dima On 28/11/2022 10:55, Dima Kogan wrote: Hi. I've been manually checking the merge requests, and have been accepting most of them. There is one thing the janitor does that I don't agree with, and I'd be against any automated merging of those patches. This is adding Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (=WHATEVER). Such dependencies break building of the package on anything other than sid, and are thus unhelpful. If you can stop the janitor from making this change, that'd probably be good. Can you expand on this a bit? There are plenty of packages with B-D on debhelper-compat (= 13) that are backported to the current stable and oldstable releases without any changes. I'm not sure how using debhelper-compat (= X) is any worse than debhelper (> X) + debian/compat=X — in terms of backporting, they all require that the relevant version of debhelper is in the release that you're targetting. The value of the compat level can certainly make a difference to backporting, since you need that version of debhelper in the release or in backports. But with debhelper 12 in oldoldstable-backports and debhelper 13 in oldstable-backports and stable/stable-backports, that's not really a restriction, is it? (likewise in supported ubuntu releases) cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 03:55:05PM -0800, Dima Kogan wrote: > Hi. I've been manually checking the merge requests, and have been > accepting most of them. There is one thing the janitor does that I don't > agree with, and I'd be against any automated merging of those patches. > This is adding Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (=WHATEVER). Such > dependencies break building of the package on anything other than sid, > and are thus unhelpful. If you can stop the janitor from making this > change, that'd probably be good. > That sounds reasonable. I am adding in Jelmer to the thread, so they could help tweak it for debian-science@ commits/MRs -- Best, Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Hi. I've been manually checking the merge requests, and have been accepting most of them. There is one thing the janitor does that I don't agree with, and I'd be against any automated merging of those patches. This is adding Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (=WHATEVER). Such dependencies break building of the package on anything other than sid, and are thus unhelpful. If you can stop the janitor from making this change, that'd probably be good.
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Hi David On 27/11/2022 23:29, David Bremner wrote: Personally I often find it hard to prioritize understanding the MRs from the janitor, and I'm not comfortable with having a bot commit to a repo that I am responsible for. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned. I'm an uploader only for a tiny fraction of the team's packages, so my views should not block anything. A few years ago when Janitor was new, I felt the same uneasiness about letting it commit things. I've since changed my view for a few reasons: * Nothing gets uploaded without human eyes looking at it anyway * It's git, so you can you just revert anything that is a problem, should that actually be the case in reality (and having processed many hundreds of Janitor merges, I am yet to see any that were); and the issues I speculated about at first with this have turned out to be imagined rather than real * Janitor's ability to edit files without reformatting them has improved and so its changes are small, targeted, and easily readable * its commits are small and simple — the vast majority of the commits I just merged from Janitor were (a) fixing whitespace errors, (b) removing obsolete and unneeded version constraints, (c) adding simple multi-arch headers. These are all nice to have, safe, and simple. * Janitor has been a member of some big Debian teams for a couple of years and has been successful in those teams — Janitor has been committing directly to git repos in both the Perl and Python teams for around two years. > I guess I can always pull a few packages from > the team space on Salsa. That is quite contrary to what both Janitor and I are hoping to do here. The point is to enhance the team and to remove the boring work. Given Janitor has been committing directly to Perl repos that you are responsible for already, perhaps this isn't as much of a change as feared? cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
On 27/11/2022 19:30, Julien Puydt wrote: Perhaps people didn't get notified they had MRs ? Entirely possible, hence the suggestions in my message were that we should: a) automate what can be automated so that attention is not needed b) check our individual salsa notification settings for repos we care about c) check the dd-list of outstanding MRs Stuart -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Stuart Prescott writes: > Hi folks > > tl;dr: there lots of untriaged MRs on salsa; let's permit Janitor to > automatically commit its updates > > > There are lots of MRs on salsa for science-team packages that are open. > Many of these have been open for months and many have no comments, > triage or feedback visible on salsa. Many of these have been made by > first time contributors who, by virtue of their MRs sitting > unacknowledged and unmerged for months, think we don't care. That's not > our intended message! Personally I often find it hard to prioritize understanding the MRs from the janitor, and I'm not comfortable with having a bot commit to a repo that I am responsible for. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned. I'm an uploader only for a tiny fraction of the team's packages, so my views should not block anything. I guess I can always pull a few packages from the team space on Salsa. d
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Hello, I have the same concern than Anton. if it is easy to black list a bunch of package, it would be great. Most of my packages could benefit from this automatic commit, I am also ok with automatic upgrade of my packages if it works :)) Everything that let me use my time on real packaging failures would be great. Cheers Fred
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Hello Stuart, thanks for the information! I am personally OK with the idea of committing directly to the Science packages, not sure about the opinions of other team members. But if it improves the overall package quality - I am totally for this. Otherwise, I did not find an opportunity to blacklist some packages for the janitor, not being touched by this tool. There are some difficult ones, so I would prefer to have this option. Do you know, whether it is possible? Thanks! Anton Am So., 27. Nov. 2022 um 06:02 Uhr schrieb Stuart Prescott : > > Hi folks > > tl;dr: there lots of untriaged MRs on salsa; let's permit Janitor to > automatically commit its updates > > > There are lots of MRs on salsa for science-team packages that are open. > Many of these have been open for months and many have no comments, > triage or feedback visible on salsa. Many of these have been made by > first time contributors who, by virtue of their MRs sitting > unacknowledged and unmerged for months, think we don't care. That's not > our intended message! > > Attached are: > > * a list of MRs that are currently open on salsa (sorted by package) > > * associated dd-list of maintainers/uploaders for these packages > > If you don't currently get notified about MRs being opened for packages > you are interested in, I encourage you to tweak your salsa notification > preferences. My approach to this is to "star" packages for which I am > maintainer, uploader, or otherwise interested enough in that I'd like to > see notifications for MRs. > > > In amongst the human-generated MRs, there was also a huge number of > automated MRs from the Janitor bot. Over the last couple of days I've > been through Janitor's MRs (about 200 of them). These are all really > simple changes, each of which I checked and almost all of them I have > merged. > > For those not familiar with Janitor, it looks for easy to fix issues in > the packaging that are flagged by lintian (or other similar tools) and > fixes them. Unlike lintian, it has internet access and knowledge of the > Debian archive, so it can do extra things like update upstream homepages > or remove obsolete version constraints on packages. Janitor's fixes > range from pedantic to very useful; even the more pedantic ones steadily > improve the signal:noise of lintian and so lintian becomes more useful > on those packages. > > https://janitor.debian.net/ > > I propose that we let Janitor make these commits directly rather than > opening MRs; quite a few other teams in Debian have done this and it is > working well. Janitor has proven itself to be reliable and useful. Since > we've now been able to see that Janitor's changes are OK for a few > years, we can safely cut out the manual work and just let the bot get on > with its work. Comments? > > regards > Stuart > > -- > Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net > Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org > GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
Re: MRs on salsa and letting janitor automate things
Hi, Le dim. 27 nov. 2022, 06:02, Stuart Prescott a écrit : > > tl;dr: there lots of untriaged MRs on salsa; let's permit Janitor to > automatically commit its updates Perhaps people didn't get notified they had MRs ? I know for a fact I found out and reacted about a MR months after the fact - I only saw it because I connected to salsa to create a new repository! Cheers, J.Puydt
