Received: (at 63414) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2023 14:39:39 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Nov 05 09:39:39 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36396 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1qzeHq-0002GF-TB for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2023 09:39:39 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37242) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1qzeHp-0002G3-5m for 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 Nov 2023 09:39:37 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1qzeH8-0002Tw-L0; Sun, 05 Nov 2023 09:38:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=qxFpOVrIAfkiJXn5N0RcLqtfN6XRaAK1mglxKLTBZ/0=; b=pcWaVlW1dfsvmU5sHfFX 4SjE8UswyLlPVZk7a0XM5hoxsP2Lsn/kPX7JWty853Apilu0cmLkesMj0w01VHIYkFn0Rj8EcpDYW mAk4p3/kmQVLbRDskTOAnASofitY/aGZT1ppLTFbNjYOaefvQ3ybYD2MPjKZ87jH0ZU9+2oNKSKK+ AtFUIHIMg7shSb+1ScswPXXyJYbLXtBSdvD4/I1WXFqLeywA0q5iMYpDhSDa6g6TByeXA7k2kQUzL KzkmLeXDEI03oAVyW53o+juyHNpjSTXus+kaLwasjMULIKFeL+iWIAJjbsZ/EyZxQ9VjbEbprfAVQ 8QCrMPclGbol1Q==; From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN> To: Christopher Baines <mail@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#63414: Evaluation comparison on cuirass In-Reply-To: <87cywwzh8l.fsf@HIDDEN> (Christopher Baines's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:32:35 +0000") References: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> <87y1fl74nr.fsf@HIDDEN> <87cywwzh8l.fsf@HIDDEN> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Quintidi 15 Brumaire an 232 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9v?= =?utf-8?Q?olution=2C?= jour du Dindon X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2023 15:38:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87sf5k1czo.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 63414 Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>, Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi, Christopher Baines <mail@HIDDEN> skribis: > The data service used to poll ci.guix.gnu.org for builds and build > status information, but I stopped that quite a while ago after the data > got messy when the Cuirass database was deleted and recreated. Since the > data service stores and uses the build IDs from Cuirass, it's confusing > when they're reused. Ah yes, that=E2=80=99s a problem. Maybe it should have UUIDs or something = in addition to those database IDs; or maybe the Data Service can use, say, derivation + ID as a unique ID for Cuirass builds? [...] > The other blocker to making use of Cuirass data in the data service is > making sure it's high quality, in particular that if it says a build has > failed, I at least want to know it's started to build that > derivation. We don't want things showing up on QA as problems when it's > just Cuirass being unable to start builds. Indeed. :-) Well, I do hope that status =3D failed really means build failure; seems we=E2=80=99re not completely done with the infamous =E2=80= =9Cmissing .drv=E2=80=9D bug though, and that=E2=80=99s erroneously reported as =E2=80= =9Cfailed=E2=80=9D. Ludo=E2=80=99.
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 63414) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2023 07:45:43 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 30 03:45:43 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44194 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1qxMxy-0004HZ-S1 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 03:45:43 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([2a01:7e00:e000:2f8:fd4d:b5c7:13fb:3d27]:39079) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1qxMxs-0004HN-Vx for 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 03:45:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [217.110.181.146]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35F8B27BBE2; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:45:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from felis (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id b958618b; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:45:01 +0000 (UTC) References: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> <87y1fl74nr.fsf@HIDDEN> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.5; emacs 28.2 From: Christopher Baines <mail@HIDDEN> To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#63414: Evaluation comparison on cuirass Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:32:35 +0000 In-reply-to: <87y1fl74nr.fsf@HIDDEN> Message-ID: <87cywwzh8l.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 63414 Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>, Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@HIDDEN> writes: > Hello, > > Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> skribis: > >> When working on a branch and deciding whether to merge it, we need a way >> of comparing its status with that of the master branch. As far as I can = see, >> there is currently no way in cuirass to compare arbitrary evaluations and >> get a list (or a dashboard) of builds that fail in one, but not the othe= r. > > Going back to this, I agree with Josselin that the Data Service does an > excellent job at comparing the status of different revisions; I think we > should leverage that rather than try to implement something similar in > Cuirass. > > Perhaps one thing we can improve though is the information flow from > Cuirass to the Data Service. ISTR that Christopher mentioned that the > Data Service couldn=E2=80=99t easily get information about substitute > availability from ci.guix, or something like that. Substitute availability is easy to get, but there's some difficulties around build information. > Is there still a problem here, Chris? If we need a new HTTP endpoint in > Cuirass to address that, I=E2=80=99m happy to give a hand. The data service used to poll ci.guix.gnu.org for builds and build status information, but I stopped that quite a while ago after the data got messy when the Cuirass database was deleted and recreated. Since the data service stores and uses the build IDs from Cuirass, it's confusing when they're reused. Anyway, even ignoring that, I'm unsure if polling worked well. That's why I started to look at pushing data from Cuirass to the data serivce. I did implement that, but the code on the Cuirass side was never used. It's that same endpoint though that the build coordinator uses to send build information to the data service (both instances). The other blocker to making use of Cuirass data in the data service is making sure it's high quality, in particular that if it says a build has failed, I at least want to know it's started to build that derivation. We don't want things showing up on QA as problems when it's just Cuirass being unable to start builds. Thanks, Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmU/XvpfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfiHg//W82VccgptjuwiVAWk89dFf/myKvM0fX4 4V6ExW+B6G3Jp5a4Pq5jOoLmh8rOlc0rflKypfVqY1vCC3jddXEGmzaJnQ54Oa0s ihEjjwz/2L2L5xhnla1joW2O0ESpPgxAuJyNBpDBV4YFgg3Z6e+5gI4WmRHPiECv rMCiad5JBZBsknCjwTjqJ3ceUpdVOVeCVN/ArTRzeWHXeot4IL4YM1ky9EJL6vDz 0AR5te5YybUAtKLmgJXgywDKYJQDGgW/HCdtCI46goSP7k9BDtEsSuHyMiYDqox9 yzIr8dWWgwnMIiTzVgn4Mjy97PAuBcPxmurcxlpeXrrHMdVY0+MWtLE2q0BuxL2O iWry73N1HR7sbgaJaGQSUZxG8ALPl57jzLIVSjbFkkaojIWdoJ+V8wNhR/NwpuP0 pFFIJyQ5vNHuE9HsVMJ8evCJxPCO1idvNHwixywlR4X71INWbG8rXyfG9fcVFmwo qefmdexc4v+FhTU25mCsLn0ExS6Zsq2/4kuDiEO8RbwVMVb8k44T7BvfW3McBPKq FK3ylPnZygheytK6AQq2uMdDoy/5sxiLowUO28y3Wf513JO7S1/DVO1xswRjYNH8 JTGxAMgDbqS6NyOCvoVWQDnJutAMWQnUUjx9XI4v2d0VHkAx2B6JcHT6FboRmkRu YBZZYuq6MrA= =prSg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 63414) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Oct 2023 16:52:36 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Oct 29 12:52:36 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43266 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1qx91g-0008IK-6I for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2023 12:52:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51124) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1qx91e-0008I5-Gv for 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2023 12:52:35 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1qx911-0006uF-Rf; Sun, 29 Oct 2023 12:51:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=NLTPjyeA6OEIHZV3CyDcEDGuyykcS8WhgjKknvEMRe4=; b=VvyYJUFKqusVhuefXuvm WOkT3zZq53+YlgP8gEMxubIEcCAHrw1c+anrtV4mg67viSM30Y0HJ/XcQ3tX0dJggBhff9Dt4cH0K 7j6lxrNcaxZ5ZhWJ1L10RJDgmlOaU12el3dwKjhwZjy9qF/NigINMybOZoQBlnMV6r/GVfhmPa8dz VHFJP4sZS4FN6iWasNkdnpBDN5HQ8B2lTLtr1PyLXXgHBtty1oo9n0Z/bgNCfFMFHT3lUbduLZ84Y yVQCPWkw47PqMoylZeF4O/XNXX95ts+HFq0D10D9kCN/R2JA2f5jiUgnIvCriSgwled0XilipLdJX k4BJw/GLdZPA5g==; From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN> To: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#63414: Evaluation comparison on cuirass In-Reply-To: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> (Andreas Enge's message of "Wed, 10 May 2023 12:31:12 +0200") References: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 17:51:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87y1fl74nr.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 63414 Cc: Christopher Baines <guix@HIDDEN>, Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello, Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> skribis: > When working on a branch and deciding whether to merge it, we need a way > of comparing its status with that of the master branch. As far as I can s= ee, > there is currently no way in cuirass to compare arbitrary evaluations and > get a list (or a dashboard) of builds that fail in one, but not the other. Going back to this, I agree with Josselin that the Data Service does an excellent job at comparing the status of different revisions; I think we should leverage that rather than try to implement something similar in Cuirass. Perhaps one thing we can improve though is the information flow from Cuirass to the Data Service. ISTR that Christopher mentioned that the Data Service couldn=E2=80=99t easily get information about substitute availability from ci.guix, or something like that. Is there still a problem here, Chris? If we need a new HTTP endpoint in Cuirass to address that, I=E2=80=99m happy to give a hand. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 63414) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 May 2023 15:33:22 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 11 11:33:22 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53170 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1px8IA-0004MH-Dg for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:33:22 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:42528) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1px8I8-0004M9-H2 for 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:33:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:3a91:a0a4:ecee:f157]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F184027BBEE; Thu, 11 May 2023 16:33:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from felis (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id d92bf7f1; Thu, 11 May 2023 15:33:14 +0000 (UTC) References: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> <87cz38doue.fsf@HIDDEN> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 From: Christopher Baines <mail@HIDDEN> To: Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#63414: Evaluation comparison on cuirass Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 16:15:17 +0100 In-reply-to: <87cz38doue.fsf@HIDDEN> Message-ID: <878rduzxvr.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 63414 Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>, bug-guix@HIDDEN, 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@HIDDEN> writes: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> writes: > >> When working on a branch and deciding whether to merge it, we need a way >> of comparing its status with that of the master branch. As far as I can see, >> there is currently no way in cuirass to compare arbitrary evaluations and >> get a list (or a dashboard) of builds that fail in one, but not the other. >> >> Andreas > > I guess that this is one of the features that the Build Coordinator was > built for (and it is pretty damn good at this). Maybe we could start > considering whether it makes sense to duplicate effort on Cuirass and > the Build Coordinator? I don't know how "production-ready" the build > coordinator is, compared to Cuirass? Maybe we could target getting the > Build Coordinator up to feature parity with Cuirass so that it may be > used on a wider scale? If this is something we want to focus on, we > could create a team around it and set clear goals, which would probably > lessen the burden that's on Chris currently. > > I understand that Cuirass is general enough to support much more than > Guix, but the coordinator is a wonderful piece of software and our > workflows might be outgrowing it. There's some pedantic bits here to bring up. The build coordinator doesn't have anything to do with comparing revisions (it doesn't even really know what builds correspond to which revisions), it's just for performing builds potentially across many machines, and doing something useful with the results. The data service however is meant for comparing revisions. There's a circular relationship between the two as well, since the data service can provide substitutes for derivations, which enables the build coordinator to easily build them, and then report the results of those builds back to the data service. This information about builds is important since that can then factor in to comparisons between revisions. On the bit about "feature parity with Cuirass" though, this is a bit misleading as the build coordinator exists because I wanted something with very different design decisions to Cuirass. In terms of core features, the build coordinator was complete back in late 2020 [1]. There's obviously lots that Cuirass does that the build coordinator does not, but adding features without looking at the bigger picture can be detrimental in the long term. 1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-11/msg00417.html This is not to say there aren't things to work on in the build coordinator. There are some ideas in the README and I'm more than happy to try and help people get more involved. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmRdCrhfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XdO9g/9GAAOMMuw2cm64zVQ0jin0a9+eT5g9149 kXVuX3JFLBcunIbJvEsgpknMyR7g4F8++qaFckSiX7ZwAhrP/MbawEs7GBrW6e3y TYXc2rRv3ZsM3hGRIJKSKyJsSwknXeWJk0v9su+MphBM3BxTM2HdIL+LC8HrwvFf Ml9zq0s/hLa8krfUDXpgb0oVvxaItjxdP+lMBzFsbWYlvmQAbMGYE+e6n2e2WC8+ AIl4pLbX1qS0MG/5o/FIcb+CwNETEFXkgDT/o8DvJ1APvF1MhzdfvkpSsSPNTt0D CpcjS11BObLUKStYS6icacJ2x0Jz597psF0tgTq61elVYz4NyaRiyP0R7z4FwsF+ /DLX+TRw6xY0w7Mg3RMLi7mSLTxSCfT4s1P4+RvDOxZTxVRvfah7pkhyHdkDefvx /rm+A3YbkLhhdKeLuFLLJwvS86I3tCM79cvOd/u8IUtynFgya5ugO+AykXUujUNF SVCanh2gewp/WQYFQ7qpWzk456MXakq0/SmS7kBkXC8UEo6mBWLfja1nqcyVSPkY 3hhQUQAmrEFQ/f9j2FAenEMwEMIrAbtuiQUFSGr9xnLs9vtXyVpyU22NVAjoOaA+ jGnVl/kJgsQaQuv143AlZLg69mZK//4Zgl+CqQWPdR73esqd77uar5rkNr87jyKo mQ2oRhDJ4jY= =ImSd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 May 2023 15:33:31 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 11 11:33:31 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53173 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1px8IG-0004Mb-3M for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:33:31 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:44172) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1px8IE-0004MU-MG for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:33:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1px8IA-0000O1-LU for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:33:20 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1px8I8-00085Z-Ru for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Thu, 11 May 2023 11:33:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:3a91:a0a4:ecee:f157]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F184027BBEE; Thu, 11 May 2023 16:33:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from felis (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id d92bf7f1; Thu, 11 May 2023 15:33:14 +0000 (UTC) References: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> <87cz38doue.fsf@HIDDEN> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 From: Christopher Baines <mail@HIDDEN> To: Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#63414: Evaluation comparison on cuirass Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 16:15:17 +0100 In-reply-to: <87cz38doue.fsf@HIDDEN> Message-ID: <878rduzxvr.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.71.252.8; envelope-from=mail@HIDDEN; helo=mira.cbaines.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>, bug-guix@HIDDEN, 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@HIDDEN> writes: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> writes: > >> When working on a branch and deciding whether to merge it, we need a way >> of comparing its status with that of the master branch. As far as I can see, >> there is currently no way in cuirass to compare arbitrary evaluations and >> get a list (or a dashboard) of builds that fail in one, but not the other. >> >> Andreas > > I guess that this is one of the features that the Build Coordinator was > built for (and it is pretty damn good at this). Maybe we could start > considering whether it makes sense to duplicate effort on Cuirass and > the Build Coordinator? I don't know how "production-ready" the build > coordinator is, compared to Cuirass? Maybe we could target getting the > Build Coordinator up to feature parity with Cuirass so that it may be > used on a wider scale? If this is something we want to focus on, we > could create a team around it and set clear goals, which would probably > lessen the burden that's on Chris currently. > > I understand that Cuirass is general enough to support much more than > Guix, but the coordinator is a wonderful piece of software and our > workflows might be outgrowing it. There's some pedantic bits here to bring up. The build coordinator doesn't have anything to do with comparing revisions (it doesn't even really know what builds correspond to which revisions), it's just for performing builds potentially across many machines, and doing something useful with the results. The data service however is meant for comparing revisions. There's a circular relationship between the two as well, since the data service can provide substitutes for derivations, which enables the build coordinator to easily build them, and then report the results of those builds back to the data service. This information about builds is important since that can then factor in to comparisons between revisions. On the bit about "feature parity with Cuirass" though, this is a bit misleading as the build coordinator exists because I wanted something with very different design decisions to Cuirass. In terms of core features, the build coordinator was complete back in late 2020 [1]. There's obviously lots that Cuirass does that the build coordinator does not, but adding features without looking at the bigger picture can be detrimental in the long term. 1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-11/msg00417.html This is not to say there aren't things to work on in the build coordinator. There are some ideas in the README and I'm more than happy to try and help people get more involved. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmRdCrhfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XdO9g/9GAAOMMuw2cm64zVQ0jin0a9+eT5g9149 kXVuX3JFLBcunIbJvEsgpknMyR7g4F8++qaFckSiX7ZwAhrP/MbawEs7GBrW6e3y TYXc2rRv3ZsM3hGRIJKSKyJsSwknXeWJk0v9su+MphBM3BxTM2HdIL+LC8HrwvFf Ml9zq0s/hLa8krfUDXpgb0oVvxaItjxdP+lMBzFsbWYlvmQAbMGYE+e6n2e2WC8+ AIl4pLbX1qS0MG/5o/FIcb+CwNETEFXkgDT/o8DvJ1APvF1MhzdfvkpSsSPNTt0D CpcjS11BObLUKStYS6icacJ2x0Jz597psF0tgTq61elVYz4NyaRiyP0R7z4FwsF+ /DLX+TRw6xY0w7Mg3RMLi7mSLTxSCfT4s1P4+RvDOxZTxVRvfah7pkhyHdkDefvx /rm+A3YbkLhhdKeLuFLLJwvS86I3tCM79cvOd/u8IUtynFgya5ugO+AykXUujUNF SVCanh2gewp/WQYFQ7qpWzk456MXakq0/SmS7kBkXC8UEo6mBWLfja1nqcyVSPkY 3hhQUQAmrEFQ/f9j2FAenEMwEMIrAbtuiQUFSGr9xnLs9vtXyVpyU22NVAjoOaA+ jGnVl/kJgsQaQuv143AlZLg69mZK//4Zgl+CqQWPdR73esqd77uar5rkNr87jyKo mQ2oRhDJ4jY= =ImSd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 63414) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2023 18:27:14 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 10 14:27:14 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49023 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1pwoWw-0006YZ-Ee for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2023 14:27:14 -0400 Received: from jpoiret.xyz ([206.189.101.64]:58560) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <dev@HIDDEN>) id 1pwoWv-0006YP-Bc for 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2023 14:27:13 -0400 Received: from authenticated-user (jpoiret.xyz [206.189.101.64]) by jpoiret.xyz (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B942818531A; Wed, 10 May 2023 18:27:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpoiret.xyz; s=dkim; t=1683743231; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=A0mJ6lXn+lCJniDPPxv5aIQx5JD8LwjopMbtGmPwMVA=; b=Wu2JPhWVaBVJ+dkGTZap+srldQw1IDQ4uU35VDW2yRFt8XronIrIKUhYel5sMNOOOPOVqX zL2SP3LagXSBh9Weyk81xBMeymtVMRFG01uLMPOo4nAVVX7XBgNF8X8DDcva4+eJ7MH6Gx 5jJICl9eGgt6k80J7w5q37nL36p6fRiXge7ZijWaDSEIgEfVg8RHHkS8Q2fgF9/EWdnqCo 2dEh1ze5vaTh+02ut9PAlhqfmBWA7hL16pDNVpPVcYMq5Ws9aTbLVrlRstdpi+rR+YW7vy iKAAqfwImC5CRPIbo6Vln6t+9CRpK1Az6frc3sLOoPpWganzTLAtFMfO1UzZGg== From: Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN> To: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>, 63414 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#63414: Evaluation comparison on cuirass In-Reply-To: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> References: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 20:27:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87cz38doue.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: jpoiret.xyz; auth=pass smtp.auth=jpoiret@HIDDEN smtp.mailfrom=dev@HIDDEN X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 63414 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Andreas, Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> writes: > When working on a branch and deciding whether to merge it, we need a way > of comparing its status with that of the master branch. As far as I can s= ee, > there is currently no way in cuirass to compare arbitrary evaluations and > get a list (or a dashboard) of builds that fail in one, but not the other. > > Andreas I guess that this is one of the features that the Build Coordinator was built for (and it is pretty damn good at this). Maybe we could start considering whether it makes sense to duplicate effort on Cuirass and the Build Coordinator? I don't know how "production-ready" the build coordinator is, compared to Cuirass? Maybe we could target getting the Build Coordinator up to feature parity with Cuirass so that it may be used on a wider scale? If this is something we want to focus on, we could create a team around it and set clear goals, which would probably lessen the burden that's on Chris currently. I understand that Cuirass is general enough to support much more than Guix, but the coordinator is a wonderful piece of software and our workflows might be outgrowing it. WDYT? =2D-=20 Josselin Poiret --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQHEBAEBCgAuFiEEOSSM2EHGPMM23K8vUF5AuRYXGooFAmRb4fkQHGRldkBqcG9p cmV0Lnh5egAKCRBQXkC5FhcaiiwuC/9eadFgdn45bz0YavoK/e5zmdWqySAcx56R P3wwWVs1NVcRTCLExFFkDVKPrOfFMdvXM7He6u5h/JFCMCeyqd5DC4bDVMrMH7Tk Frx1Zl85PyL0dNr8H242MyNSwPtDbWtZP3QGpHzzQV+FIJEx73h8m4v+WKK/B6ps ae0qKcy3JiSjYSDf6FybGBlE52+ebH7CJ1BxCzjDJ2ip8Miwxt55SxNpBXpgXzCz 2Y+t3tVOs5GntlRJ8urR5iaqguZG5pOX5oM3OndAsVhCNqrevn88BLYLy2Fst8WU srJzX1qtA2inUhYmtsDjx8W+IuaLKW0KGC0CLRGpELiRoHb6Uh8L9QOIA801Ek5M laFzfaC9d8pIj3zlVc8bI8tSof3SBo4tkjB2QkWV/i1nCp59TTPZYBBNYuAuLIV3 v8FDmKI7LTp/YjrCg+5pYV8hM1rtSWiO2TnqS0WC2BUDTjC3DgZ83ccXLGDWEBQo yxy60RbiODMVrXQrHe/1dLCXkpdTp+o= =KIjm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2023 10:31:23 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 10 06:31:23 2023 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45293 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1pwh6Q-0003R8-Rg for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2023 06:31:23 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:38562) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <andreas@HIDDEN>) id 1pwh6N-0003Qy-Co for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2023 06:31:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <andreas@HIDDEN>) id 1pwh6L-00043D-PN for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Wed, 10 May 2023 06:31:19 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <andreas@HIDDEN>) id 1pwh6J-0008Eq-OL for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Wed, 10 May 2023 06:31:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5EA373; Wed, 10 May 2023 12:31:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hera.aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfrD7YUsvJ-p; Wed, 10 May 2023 12:31:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jurong (unknown [IPv6:2001:861:c4:f2f0::c64]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1CAB1CF; Wed, 10 May 2023 12:31:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 12:31:12 +0200 From: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN> To: bug-guix@HIDDEN Subject: Evaluation comparison on cuirass Message-ID: <ZFtycPWNqiRCXGYX@jurong> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.233.100.1; envelope-from=andreas@HIDDEN; helo=hera.aquilenet.fr X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) When working on a branch and deciding whether to merge it, we need a way of comparing its status with that of the master branch. As far as I can see, there is currently no way in cuirass to compare arbitrary evaluations and get a list (or a dashboard) of builds that fail in one, but not the other. Andreas
Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>:bug-guix@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#63414; Package guix.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.