On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:43:45 +0100 fedora@leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
On 15.02.2008 20:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:37:47 +0100 fedora@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