On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:50:38 PM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:28:20PM +0100, Petr Šplíchal wrote: > > > When, for a particular package, it is the most efficient way to > > > maintain tests in a separate repo why should we discourage from > > > this approach? There are packages where it makes more sense to > > > store test code directly in dist-git. And it is still an option. > > > But why should we enforce this for all? > > > > My worries are basically that this mechanism is hiding the tests from > > the package maintainers. It splits the concerns between people > > maintaining the artifacts and people maintaining the tests, which is > > exactly what the original plan to bring CI was *not* about. > > Since we'll have to "hook" the remote repo into dist-git code, I must be > missing something. Where do you see the hidden magic? > > > The idea has always been to bring the tests where the code lives, so > > that both can be worked on as one, to make tests be a concern of the > > package maintainer very much like updating the artifact (rpms, image..) > > is, while getting support from QE for them (the tests). > > If the tests live in separate repo, they still can "work as one". How do they work as one if they are both working in different places? > > In addition, this is what I fear most: > > The tests for the package are stored elsewhere, we're not sure where (the tests > > namespace, a random git repo on the internet...), the packager update package > > and the tests fail. > > What do you think will happen? > > a) the packager will look for $random_place_of_the_internet where tests are and > > spend time trying to fix them. > > Yes, please don't force us to use random_place_of_the_internet, but rather > allow maintainers to use standardized place. > > Then e.g. 'rpmtests/<PKGNAME>' repo can automatically grant commit access > to package maintainers of 'rpms/<PKGNAME>' to not overcomplicate things, > but still, we can grant non-packagers access to 'rpmtests/<PKGNAME>'. We're working on figuring a way to give non-packagers commit to dist-git, so giving more access would work on the main repo as well. > What about proventesters, could we grant them access to all tests, or could we > create new role? > > > b) the packager will turn off the tests because they get in the way > > Polemics (even below) about turning-off the tests is FUD. Since tests are > opt-in feature, why would anyone thought this way? I may very well be miss-seeing this, but what I see is people refusing to add tests to their repository because it doesn't suit their workflow. So I am thinking that if they finally think "whatever let's just merge" because they don't want to cause troubles, whenever the tests are going to impact that workflow even more because they fail, chances are high that said person will just turn them off. I'd be happy to be wrong about that though. > > If the packager wants to turn off the tests, they will have to go through > > dist-git to do it, they may very well end up turning the tests off anyway, but > > if the tests are right there, they may as well have a quick look at them to see > > if they can fix them quickly before deciding. > > > > In addition, if the packager turn the tests off and the people maintaining the > > tests do not realize that, they will end up spending time maintaining > > $somewhere_else tests that aren't being used. > > Having them interact directly with the dist-git repo will increase the > > chances > > that they see/realize when something is turned off. > > > > If that means we have less tests in dist-git because the maintainers do > > not want them, I'd say so be it. In the long term this is their loss, > > they are the ones who will get the bug reports and will have to deal > > with them, they are the ones who will have to dive into old code rather > > than going back into something that is still fresh in their mind. > > There's no loss, no. Everything is as transparent as with in-dist-git > testing, except it gives us more flexibility > - to allow more people to contribute. Pull-requests and improvement to our dist-git set up seems to me better ways to achieve this. > - keep the package's git smaller and concentrated on packaging That one is fair. > > As long as, it is clear that they have been approached and that it is their > > choice to not merge pull-requests adding tests, I think the people offering to > > help should not be the ones blamed. > > The help here is very much welcome, I wouldn't blame anyone though (I for > one only wait for a bit more flexible form of CI). > > Btw., the far more important problem is that we can not setup CI for > non-atomic host packages, and that we can not use the CI for Rawhide Definitely agreed on this one, I've been pushing for it for the better part of a year, I'd be happy to see more people pushing for it. Pierre _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
