Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails
Am 30.09.2015 um 16:15 schrieb Mattia Rizzolo: [...] > This wouldn't work with the current implementation, which is emailing > $p...@packages.debian.org. Anyway, I received a suggestion of setting up > a new PTS keyword, so then people can go and subscribe there, maybe > using the team facility of the new tracker to subscribe to the whole lot > (i beliebe it works that way?). This is what I had in mind too. I would prefer such an implementation over the current state. Just let interested people (humans) subscribe to this feature with their private e-mail address. I still think that DDPO is sufficient but if the others feel we need the same information via e-mail then I would prefer only FTBFS reports in unstable. Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails
Hi, Am 30.09.2015 um 12:30 schrieb Holger Levsen: > Hi, > > (mostly ignoring the rest as this has been addressed already.) > > On Dienstag, 29. September 2015, Markus Koschany wrote: >> I understand that everything is still in development. However I don't >> think a public mailing list is a suitable testbed. My preferred solution >> would be to make receiving such e-mails opt-in. Everyone who wants to >> get informed by e-mail may subscribe to this feature. I personally >> prefer and regularly check DDPO because it is quite, very informative >> and can be used on demand. The only other option I can think of is to >> filter pkg-java mails. > > I think you still misunderstand: you, the java maintainers, already opted-in. > > What I then proposed was to change the notification system to allow > individual > email addresses to be subscribed to anything (and not just packages per se as > it is now) and to limit the notifications to unstable. > > But it still remains, that you (the team) opted in activly. > > If you as a team prefer, we can easily unsubscribe you now. We have never discussed this before as a team. I vote for unsubscribing pkg-java because of the issues that were pointed out already. Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails
Am 29.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg: > Le 29/09/2015 16:32, Markus Koschany a écrit : [...] > I agree the false positive are annoying, but this is understandable > since the system is still in development (the recent addition of > disorderfs caused some troubles for example). Fortunately the > reproducible builds team is very reactive and the issues are solved > quickly. I expect the notifications to stabilize progressively. I understand that everything is still in development. However I don't think a public mailing list is a suitable testbed. My preferred solution would be to make receiving such e-mails opt-in. Everyone who wants to get informed by e-mail may subscribe to this feature. I personally prefer and regularly check DDPO because it is quite, very informative and can be used on demand. The only other option I can think of is to filter pkg-java mails. >> The reports would be most useful if they included only confirmed FTBFS >> in testing. I know detecting FTBFS is only a by-product of the >> reproducible build effort but those bugs are the most interesting ones >> for us. > > Actually I tend to prefer the reports in unstable. The reports in > testing are often duplicates of issues already known in unstable, and > sometimes they are already fixed in unstable when they are notified in > testing. If we were to keep the reports for only suite I'd prefer the > unstable reports since it gives a faster feedback on our work. Ok. I could live with unstable as well as long as we agree on one distribution. Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
[Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds e-mails
Am 29.09.2015 um 16:00 schrieb Miguel Landaeta: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:05:15PM +, Reproducible builds folks wrote: >> More information on >> https://reproducible.debian.net/testing/amd64/libibatis-java, feel free to >> reply to this email to get more help. > > Hi folks, > > Thank you very much for your helpful periodic email reports about > packages reproducibility. > > However, you should be more careful about false positive FTBFS reports > since in this case the failure came from lack of disk space in the > autobuilder. I would like to take the opportunity to raise the following concern. I support the reproducible builds effort but I think the periodic e-mails to pkg-java are often not useful enough at the moment. There are far too many false-positives. The list should be reserved for discussing bug reports and due the flood of reproducible e-mails it happens that one can miss a bug report. The reports would be most useful if they included only confirmed FTBFS in testing. I know detecting FTBFS is only a by-product of the reproducible build effort but those bugs are the most interesting ones for us. All other issues are plainly visible thanks to DDPO and the corresponding QA pages like https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-java-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org There is even a column for CI/Rep. Thanks Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
