[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-release-team
Subject:    Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?
From:       Scarlett Clark <scarlett.gately.clark () gmail ! com>
Date:       2017-01-06 20:56:23
Message-ID: CAEY8Rk-tYao1pdztQePVkGNMNguV_aGpYY+Uw7A-ge+jNfEE5g () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hello all,
First my apologies, yes the CI system is behind, I had done significant
work on a new revamp and then life, work and those other incredibly
annoying things got in the way. The CI team is rather small and we are
trying our best to move things forward. We are now getting back on track,
but it will still be some time to get this out the door. The PIM team has
worked with me directly and we have had very good luck getting their
requirements satisfied working together. If anyone needs something extra,
like a dependency built from source, just ask. Despite my best efforts,
mailing lists, I simply can't keep up. Ping me, directly CC me, telegram
me, anything. I am always accommodating. Again, sorry this has all come to
this point.
Thank you,
Scarlett


On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Ben Cooksley <bcooksley@kde.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It seems that my previous vocal complaints about system level /
> serious impact dependency bumps on the CI system have gone completely
> unnoticed by (some) members of our Community.
>
> This was demonstrated earlier this week when components of Plasma
> bumped their version requirements for XKBCommon and Appstream-Qt -
> without even a thought about notifying Sysadmin or checking which
> version the CI had, until their builds broke.
>
> Neither of these is easy to fix at this stage, as the system base is
> now too old to receive updates such as these. Base upgrades require a
> full rebuild of everything on the CI system, and usually involve
> significant additional churn and is a process that must be done
> roughly twice a year, depending on dependency bump demands.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we may avoid this in the future?
>
> At this point i'm in favour of if you don't follow the rules your
> dependency bump just gets reverted out of existence, then you get to
> go through the process properly...
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hello all,<br></div>First my apologies, yes the CI \
system is behind, I had done significant work on a new revamp and then life, work and \
those other incredibly annoying things got in the way. The CI team is rather small \
and we are trying our best to move things forward. We are now getting back on track, \
but it will still be some time to get this out the door. The PIM team has worked with \
me directly and we have had very good luck getting their requirements satisfied \
working together. If anyone needs something extra, like a dependency built from \
source, just ask. Despite my best efforts, mailing lists, I simply can&#39;t keep up. \
Ping me, directly CC me, telegram me, anything. I am always accommodating. Again, \
sorry this has all come to this point.<br></div>Thank you,<br></div>Scarlett \
<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, \
2017 at 12:44 AM, Ben Cooksley <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:bcooksley@kde.org" \
target="_blank">bcooksley@kde.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br> <br>
It seems that my previous vocal complaints about system level /<br>
serious impact dependency bumps on the CI system have gone completely<br>
unnoticed by (some) members of our Community.<br>
<br>
This was demonstrated earlier this week when components of Plasma<br>
bumped their version requirements for XKBCommon and Appstream-Qt -<br>
without even a thought about notifying Sysadmin or checking which<br>
version the CI had, until their builds broke.<br>
<br>
Neither of these is easy to fix at this stage, as the system base is<br>
now too old to receive updates such as these. Base upgrades require a<br>
full rebuild of everything on the CI system, and usually involve<br>
significant additional churn and is a process that must be done<br>
roughly twice a year, depending on dependency bump demands.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we may avoid this in the future?<br>
<br>
At this point i&#39;m in favour of if you don&#39;t follow the rules your<br>
dependency bump just gets reverted out of existence, then you get to<br>
go through the process properly...<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Ben<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]