On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:43:45 +0100
fedora(a)leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
On 15.02.2008 20:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:37:47 +0100
> fedora(a)leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>> On 30.01.2008 23:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:23:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> and how often to run a script like that,
>> How long does it take to run? I'd say if it doesn't consume to many
>> resources it'd say at least two, better three times a week. Once a
>> week is the minimum I'd say.
> Looks like it takes about 5min here.
> I would say once a week is enough... unless the broken deps are in
> stable, then instead of running it more, I think we just go and try
> and fix them or contact the maintainer via email/irc/phone to fix
> them.
If it really takes only a few minutes to run I'd much prefer to run it
right after every push -- that way packagers normally will get a
feedback closely after they realized a change.
Well, or if we are going to do that, we could add in the needsign queue
and run it before a push? Or just do that and make it a policy to never
push a package with broken deps?
If we do it only once a week the worst case might be around 11 days
(7
days between runs + 4 days from needsign to repo) between doing a
change on foo and getting a mail that "foo broke the world". That's
to long IMHO.
Sure, I guess...
>>> whether or not to include
>>> "testing"
>> For EPEL we afaics need to run it one without testing and once
>> with. Only then we notice if a dep is broken in stable and only
>> then people will tell the signers to push a new build to stable
>> quickly to fix the issue properly.
> Sure, but hopefully the stable run is empty usually.
And if not we quickly should do something. Even in testing there are
to many broken deps. :-/
Agreed. So, perhaps we should talk about just making it a policy to
never push a package with broken deps, and remove the ones that are
currently in testing with broken deps.
CU
knurd
kevin