Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:04:58PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >>Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> >>>You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited: >>>- teach developers to use -kb where they should >> >>Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch? > > -kb is actually better than -ko, due to how it's handled on later commits to > a file. Interesting. Thanks for showing this to us -- I checked the info and man pages but didn't catch this section. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCbG44XVaO67S1rtsRAgM6AJ9BdqfhxjC7RxWGP5DtSH61A1ErewCg6pb0 7gNP2ffJMbU23UPrLYOQxZg= =TkiD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 07:04:58PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited: > > - teach developers to use -kb where they should > Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch? -kb is actually better than -ko, due to how it's handled on later commits to a file. The CVS manual states: `-ko' Generate the old keyword string, present in the working file just before it was checked in. For example, for the Revision keyword, generate the string $Revision: 1.1 $ instead of $Revision: 5.7 $ if that is how the string appeared when the file was checked in. `-kb' Like `-ko', but also inhibit conversion of line endings between the canonical form in which they are stored in the repository (linefeed only), and the form appropriate to the operating system in use on the client. For systems, like unix, which use linefeed only to terminate lines, this is very similar to `-ko'. For more information on binary files, see Handling binary files. In CVS version 1.12.2 and later `-kb', as set by cvs add, cvs admin, or cvs import may not be overridden by a `-k' option specified on the command line. Note the last sentence again: In CVS version 1.12.2 and later `-kb', as set by cvs add, cvs admin, or cvs import may not be overridden by a `-k' option specified on the command line. So this makes it much harder to break on later revisions as compared to -ko. Also, if you have inconsistant linefeeds, cvs -ko can break sometimes (some versions of Outlook mangled patches in this way @%$&@%$^). -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpe9PXcWusiy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robin H. Johnson wrote: > You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited: > - teach developers to use -kb where they should Wouldn't it be -ko for a patch? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCbFBKXVaO67S1rtsRAk/JAJ9NVf6yQWqAeEbIQAENRoT9xMAihgCfeRYd SfsRmWO8JuzC2HzY3LR94Kk= =T1Uo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:04:48AM +0200, Anders Rune Jensen wrote: > Let me first start by saying that committing straight to stable was > clearly a mistake. I can't help wonder why CVS would change patch files > (it probably doesn't know the difference between ordinary files and > patches) This is mostly an assumption here, as I don't know all of the details, but in the past I did run into problems with patches that dealt with the CVS keywords. You'd commit the patch, but doing so would change it, until you commited it with the -kb keyword option. > or why repoman doesn't catch something like this? CVS changing > files on commit goes against the whole "test before commit" mantra and > I'm probably not the first to have encountered this problem? You aren't the first no, but the solutions to it are limited: - teach developers to use -kb where they should - use an alternative keyword only for the gentoo-x86 module (some of the BSDs do this IIRC) - and turn off the normal keywords. - repoman checks might be very difficult to do, but it should be possible to at least have it do warnings if it finds CVS keywords that might be dangerous. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpzxbmtDbieh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 14:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever* > commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a > trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with > simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally included some CVS Id: > lines in your patch, they'll get nuked when you do the commit. And, if > you commit straight to stable, you end up breaking arch rather than just > ~arch. > > The "all things must go through ~arch for a while first" rule is there > for a good reason. It's not something you can arbitrarily ignore because > you think you're not breaking anything... Let me first start by saying that committing straight to stable was clearly a mistake. I can't help wonder why CVS would change patch files (it probably doesn't know the difference between ordinary files and patches) or why repoman doesn't catch something like this? CVS changing files on commit goes against the whole "test before commit" mantra and I'm probably not the first to have encountered this problem? -- Anders Rune Jensen http://www.cs.auc.dk/~arj/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/62C2D7F0 @ pgp.mit.edu Fingerprint: 6A03 907E 92E1 47EB 4EAB 76B6 068A ACD1 62C2 D7F0 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sunday 24 April 2005 05:09 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Of course, there's the occasional notable exception who regularly screws > stuff up and just plain doesn't care. spank me ! :( -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>They're >>supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long >>it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe). > > I was talking about double-checking *every* commit of every developer. That > will be an overkill, imho. > I think if you limited it to commits that are essentially tree wide/eclasses it could be limited that way. Fex, this weekend there was a category move where repoman had some messed up behavior during the move causing mrness headaches with recommiting a bunch of crap. Things like this as well as eclass changes ( which have the potential to break 100's of ebuilds/packages ) would be decent coverage. As it stands right now someone can make a tree-wide commit and fsck crap up and the only recourse you have is to contact Infra and hope someone turns the cvs->rsync off in time. I think thats a glorious hack ( no offense brian, hehe ) of an otherwise obvious ( to me anyway ) problem. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQmwUr2zglR5RwbyYAQJHhA//UdfJnfSwpqWrs66Rf0efC917icoEcbbX AuT0ENAEoFw9QtgbNHY0+uZAL+iOrt7C5maxWa916bG9Zc5/qCSg87zeMSI02c+1 w9dcOpLhy48zVD+Tb7cctLztU+GAH9X+ZB7T7OuNnmz49CiZ/dW+wVDHEYiJzgSg btZ+1Thsuo1Lc4hiKCc+j/qW3y0igmc9vTmJElgYh4bzfyFvO/jXKR/oCrU4lghh kpdoJNR6oPH8od8P1PfdbQp1cHCcW8P3R3DbYE58O0M7rUtZRNUOkXtnPLV+t/E4 xSX59lNzIaUlrWVO0ImluKavLzoIpEU6OZzjQwxm+KFSv0mHx1Mk6/3Eu108hM/1 ze32sxHHRY4l+vlZGN8mySwIENcvlVFHbH+GJIdLbToFAZFvcB0FZ6xAeaPybdxJ /OlgvfzvN2viNnc3NZPmSOKCkljbZkcEiIg5TgeNX98UJV2gzQJEKOWuB3IjcNIb T0VwSmRiy0U8dfui53tL3lVF/XqgBA5j8F2oXR+btY7S0j5wSKW+msOzj05c8U8c 0A9209YURKh99J+5zXzffO6chHSlHiNJS19ME+5C3eAor78FJj3C0PlDXskO03p4 teco5foc4LbCQ4V+ACeGPRgctfV5j1BFCJxF5s3N4NWPK97DezVJgjC9UEatQGfz xdq1apDbe6Y= =XOel -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:37:00 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > They're | > supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how | > long it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe). | | I was talking about double-checking *every* commit of every developer. | That will be an overkill, imho. Oh, yeah, every developer would be a waste. But new developers and those who have a history of breaking things (plus maybe most developers for stuff like eutils) wouldn't be unreasonable if we had the technology... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpOXu2Ikgd9k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > They're > supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long > it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe). I was talking about double-checking *every* commit of every developer. That will be an overkill, imho. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenà Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64) http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ pgpNkZa2mnJF3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:24:08 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I think that doing something like that, surely will increase safety, | but will also drive gentoo out of the world. | | We have already too many packages which needs maintainers, and having | to double-check every commit can be very very slow, because if | there's too few people doing the second check, the bottleneck will | stop everything being fixed, changed, updated. If it were implemented with CVS, then yes, because it'd be unusably slow. With SVN, doing a branch merge for approval is extremely fast. And your mentor is already checking all your commits, right? They're supposed to do that for the first month or so (depending upon how long it is before it becomes obvious that you're safe). A branch is just the same, but without the added hazard of having commits going straight to the live tree. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpQR9vCgZTWD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sunday 24 April 2005 23:08, Francesco Riosa wrote: > Also if who approves is _not_ the mentor / sane a 4 eyes check is always > a good thing (TM) it's the way kernel develop is going from years now, > right? I think that doing something like that, surely will increase safety, but will also drive gentoo out of the world. We have already too many packages which needs maintainers, and having to double-check every commit can be very very slow, because if there's too few people doing the second check, the bottleneck will stop everything being fixed, changed, updated. Another problem is that there are tons of commits everyday, some of them are just trivials. I'm a new developer, but still today i did at least 10 commits, if I counted them all. Some of them was just ~amd64 markings, other were fixes and version bumps. Some of them can't be tested, would require mergers to try the change locally and that could be really long, as to test some of them I needed to rebuild at least 6 packages. Also when keywording is concerned, after some time seeing similar patches you just can't say the differences between them. I've done a couple of errors in this week I worked on gentoo, yes, but I was able to fix them asap. They was mainly trivial errors which I really have overseen (a ! not separed by space, an $Id: $ in a patch); probably double-checking them could have fixed them, but like so applying a security patch would have took surely more than just the about 40 minutes it took. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò Gentoo Developer (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64) http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ pgpATDjwLcExC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:59:14 +0200 foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 21:29 +0100, Paul Waring wrote: | > Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something | > straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has | > their CVS access revoked. | | It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some | people commit more than others and as such are more likely to trip | over such a rule anyway and the people who do commit a lot are usually | the same people you don't want to revoke the access from. Actually, *most* of the regular high volume committers tend to get it right, since they're experienced enough to know exactly what they're doing and get everything right without even needing to think about it. Of course, there's the occasional notable exception who regularly screws stuff up and just plain doesn't care. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpBqdPWY3qa6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On 4/24/05, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some > people commit more than others and as such are more likely to trip over > such a rule anyway and the people who do commit a lot are usually the > same people you don't want to revoke the access from. It was only a suggestion - you could have it so that anyone who trips up iin more than X% of commits gets access revoked, or reduced, or whatever. > 1 strike, you are out. Oh I see, a user can't make one suggestion as to a policy to deal with a problem but a dev can make as many mistakes as they like which cause systems to break. Paul -- Rogue Tory www.roguetory.org.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
>What I'd *like* to see is all new devs and any dev who has a history of >breaking things committing to a branch rather than the main tree, and >having their commits approved (merged) by their mentor / someone sane. > > Also if who approves is _not_ the mentor / sane a 4 eyes check is always a good thing (TM) it's the way kernel develop is going from years now, right? Is it feasible ? Obviously without make the developer life an hell ! -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 21:29 +0100, Paul Waring wrote: > Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something > straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their > CVS access revoked. It's not California here. You completely ignore the fact that some people commit more than others and as such are more likely to trip over such a rule anyway and the people who do commit a lot are usually the same people you don't want to revoke the access from. It's just a reminder, don't make up some unenforceable policy just because people make mistakes from time to time. 1 strike, you are out. - foser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On 4/24/05, Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh, comming from non-gentoo email address :-) I get just as annoyed if someone commits something straight to stable and it breaks something on my system. :) Paul -- Rogue Tory www.roguetory.org.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:29:19 +0100 Paul Waring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't | > *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you | > think it's a trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go | > wrong even with simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally | > included some CVS Id: lines in your patch, they'll get nuked when | > you do the commit. And, if you commit straight to stable, you end up | > breaking arch rather than just ~arch. | | Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something | straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their | CVS access revoked. Because no-one would enforce it. As it stands right now, you can repeatedly break eutils.eclass, all of profiles, keywords on any package you like or anything else you care to name, and nothing will happen, no matter how many people complain. On the other hand, close a single bugzilla bug as INVALID and you risk the wrath of our esteemed devrel team when someone complains. What I'd *like* to see is all new devs and any dev who has a history of breaking things committing to a branch rather than the main tree, and having their commits approved (merged) by their mentor / someone sane. Plus, possibly, having main-branch commits to things like eutils restricted to people who really should be touching it. But CVS branches are pretty much unusable in this respect... *shrug* not that that's going to happen. Last I heard from someone in devrel, this kind of thing was apparently the QA herd's area, not theirs. Right... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpLiNQXalf5A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
Paul Waring wrote: > Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something > straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their > CVS access revoked. Heh, comming from non-gentoo email address :-) -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
On 4/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever* > commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a > trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with > simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally included some CVS Id: > lines in your patch, they'll get nuked when you do the commit. And, if > you commit straight to stable, you end up breaking arch rather than just > ~arch. Why not have a three strike rule - anyone who commits something straight to stable 3 times in a given period (say 6 months) has their CVS access revoked. Paul -- Rogue Tory www.roguetory.org.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Don't *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you > think it's a > trivial fix. Indeed! I learned that lesson with bug 73072 :) - -- Aaron Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCa/bMC3poscuANHARAovUAKDWcWptHSHnmSg/LowMvrGgr+NJWACgiV67 AC9f+HPVGY/mah/TtaJbmjk= =ZTS2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Committing straight to stable
Since keywording policy seems to be being ignored again... Don't *ever* commit new ebuild revisions straight to stable, even if you think it's a trivial fix. There are plenty of things that could go wrong even with simple patches -- for example, if you accidentally included some CVS Id: lines in your patch, they'll get nuked when you do the commit. And, if you commit straight to stable, you end up breaking arch rather than just ~arch. The "all things must go through ~arch for a while first" rule is there for a good reason. It's not something you can arbitrarily ignore because you think you're not breaking anything... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpDEdrFHsuTw.pgp Description: PGP signature
