GNU bug report logs - #63521
Request for merging "tex-team" branch

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 63521 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 63521 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 17:48:05 +0200

Hello,

I'd like the current "tex-team" to be merged into master.

AFAIK, there are no blockers yet.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Message #8 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 10:57:24 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> I'd like the current "tex-team" to be merged into master.
>
> AFAIK, there are no blockers yet.

Thanks for creating this issue.

The bordeaux build farm hasn't started building the tex-team branch yet,
although I'll try and get that to happen soon.

Unfortunately the build farms still have quite a lot of work to do with
the master branch, if you compare the substitute availability before the
recent core-updates merge [1] to now [2], things are still very lacking
for armhf-linux and i686-linux.

1: https://data.guix.gnu.org/revision/472706ae2f9160833951a4e4bcc4c206e03097b0/package-substitute-availability
2: https://data.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master/latest-processed-revision/package-substitute-availability

While I realise that waiting to make changes is fustrating, I think it's
important to try and build things before merging so that the effects are
known. This is also good motivation to get more hardware helping to
build things to speed up the process.

Thanks,

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 14:02:16 +0200

Hello,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> While I realise that waiting to make changes is fustrating, I think it's
> important to try and build things before merging so that the effects are
> known. This is also good motivation to get more hardware helping to
> build things to speed up the process.

I opened the issue because the "tex-team" branch was fully built on
CI, according to <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/461653>.

Should I have looked elsewhere before asking for the merge?

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Message #14 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 13:05:55 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> While I realise that waiting to make changes is fustrating, I think it's
>> important to try and build things before merging so that the effects are
>> known. This is also good motivation to get more hardware helping to
>> build things to speed up the process.
>
> I opened the issue because the "tex-team" branch was fully built on
> CI, according to <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/461653>.
>
> Should I have looked elsewhere before asking for the merge?

I see opening the issue as something to do near the middle of the
process. Similar to opening an issue for some patches, so I think now is
a good time.

However, I'd be sceptical of what you see at [1]. I'm guessing what
you're seeing is correct (at least in the sense of Cuirrass), but there
being no more scheduled builds doesn't mean the branch is good to merge.

1: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/461653

You can see here [2] that while substitute availability is OK for
x86_64-linux and i686-linux, it's poor for all other systems. Also, I
think this might not actually relate to changes on the branch,
substitute availability for aarch64-linux is poor from ci.guix.gnu.org
on the master branch as well.

2: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#63521: Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 16:06:40 +0200

Hi,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> skribis:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> While I realise that waiting to make changes is fustrating, I think it's
>> important to try and build things before merging so that the effects are
>> known. This is also good motivation to get more hardware helping to
>> build things to speed up the process.
>
> I opened the issue because the "tex-team" branch was fully built on
> CI, according to <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/461653>.
>
> Should I have looked elsewhere before asking for the merge?

Looking at <https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team>, there are 13 new
failures on x86_64 (178 vs. 165), but I’m not sure what they are because
the comparison page shows all the changed derivations (whereas we’d like
to see new failures only).

How can we get that info, Chris?

I did find one “new” failure on the comparison page but I can’t believe
it’s related to changes in the branch:

  https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/gnu/store/a7898v4zq86vzn664g5xh0dq6s1p813k-ams-lv2-1.2.2.drv

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #20 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: bug#63521: Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 15:36:13 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> skribis:
>
>> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>>
>>> While I realise that waiting to make changes is fustrating, I think it's
>>> important to try and build things before merging so that the effects are
>>> known. This is also good motivation to get more hardware helping to
>>> build things to speed up the process.
>>
>> I opened the issue because the "tex-team" branch was fully built on
>> CI, according to <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/461653>.
>>
>> Should I have looked elsewhere before asking for the merge?
>
> Looking at <https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team>, there are 13 new
> failures on x86_64 (178 vs. 165), but I’m not sure what they are because
> the comparison page shows all the changed derivations (whereas we’d like
> to see new failures only).
>
> How can we get that info, Chris?

So, taking one step back, these numbers come from a comparison of
tex-team and the master branch, and while that sounds sensible, because
it's a comparison of the tips of those branches, I think some of what
you're seeing is breakages that have happened on the master branch but
after the last common commit.

> I did find one “new” failure on the comparison page but I can’t believe
> it’s related to changes in the branch:
>
>   https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/gnu/store/a7898v4zq86vzn664g5xh0dq6s1p813k-ams-lv2-1.2.2.drv

Yeah, as I say above it's possible that this has been broken on master
and not tex-team.

I'll look at getting the comparisons to happen between revisions that
better isolate the changes on the branch, I might just initially ignore
the hard case where the "merge base" in the Git sense isn't know by the
data service.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 14:20:04 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> skribis:
>>
>>> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> While I realise that waiting to make changes is fustrating, I think it's
>>>> important to try and build things before merging so that the effects are
>>>> known. This is also good motivation to get more hardware helping to
>>>> build things to speed up the process.
>>>
>>> I opened the issue because the "tex-team" branch was fully built on
>>> CI, according to <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/461653>.
>>>
>>> Should I have looked elsewhere before asking for the merge?
>>
>> Looking at <https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team>, there are 13 new
>> failures on x86_64 (178 vs. 165), but I’m not sure what they are because
>> the comparison page shows all the changed derivations (whereas we’d like
>> to see new failures only).
>>
>> How can we get that info, Chris?
>
> So, taking one step back, these numbers come from a comparison of
> tex-team and the master branch, and while that sounds sensible, because
> it's a comparison of the tips of those branches, I think some of what
> you're seeing is breakages that have happened on the master branch but
> after the last common commit.
>
>> I did find one “new” failure on the comparison page but I can’t believe
>> it’s related to changes in the branch:
>>
>>   https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/gnu/store/a7898v4zq86vzn664g5xh0dq6s1p813k-ams-lv2-1.2.2.drv
>
> Yeah, as I say above it's possible that this has been broken on master
> and not tex-team.
>
> I'll look at getting the comparisons to happen between revisions that
> better isolate the changes on the branch, I might just initially ignore
> the hard case where the "merge base" in the Git sense isn't know by the
> data service.

I'm making some progress, I think I've changed the qa-frontpage in this
way, but unfortunately tex-team branched off master at a revision that
data.qa.guix.gnu.org hasn't got around to processing yet, so currently
there's no comparison.

Maybe the branch could be rebased or master could be merged in? If you
pick the latest commit with a green tick by it from [1], then that
should mean the data service is able to perform the comparison.

1: http://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/repository/2/branch/master

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #28 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>, 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:36:50 +0200

Hi,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

[...]

>> I'll look at getting the comparisons to happen between revisions that
>> better isolate the changes on the branch, I might just initially ignore
>> the hard case where the "merge base" in the Git sense isn't know by the
>> data service.
>
> I'm making some progress, I think I've changed the qa-frontpage in this
> way,

Awesome.  Perhaps qa-frontpage could be explicit about the commits used
for comparison?

> but unfortunately tex-team branched off master at a revision that
> data.qa.guix.gnu.org hasn't got around to processing yet, so currently
> there's no comparison.
>
> Maybe the branch could be rebased or master could be merged in? If you
> pick the latest commit with a green tick by it from [1], then that
> should mean the data service is able to perform the comparison.

Sounds like a plan.  Nicolas?

Thanks, Chris!

Ludo’.

Message #31 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>, 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:37:35 +0200

Hi,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

[...]

>> I'll look at getting the comparisons to happen between revisions that
>> better isolate the changes on the branch, I might just initially ignore
>> the hard case where the "merge base" in the Git sense isn't know by the
>> data service.
>
> I'm making some progress, I think I've changed the qa-frontpage in this
> way,

Awesome.  Perhaps qa-frontpage could be explicit about the commits used
for comparison?

> but unfortunately tex-team branched off master at a revision that
> data.qa.guix.gnu.org hasn't got around to processing yet, so currently
> there's no comparison.
>
> Maybe the branch could be rebased or master could be merged in? If you
> pick the latest commit with a green tick by it from [1], then that
> should mean the data service is able to perform the comparison.

Sounds like a plan.  Nicolas?

Thanks, Chris!

Ludo’.

Message #34 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 19:28:39 +0200

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:

>> Maybe the branch could be rebased or master could be merged in? If you
>> pick the latest commit with a green tick by it from [1], then that
>> should mean the data service is able to perform the comparison.
>
> Sounds like a plan.  Nicolas?

I rebased the branch on top of c57693846c7c6586c6cd1b4e4002fe399e3a2c42,
which is as green-ticked as a commit can be.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Message #39 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:13:46 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:
>
>>> Maybe the branch could be rebased or master could be merged in? If you
>>> pick the latest commit with a green tick by it from [1], then that
>>> should mean the data service is able to perform the comparison.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan.  Nicolas?
>
> I rebased the branch on top of c57693846c7c6586c6cd1b4e4002fe399e3a2c42,
> which is as green-ticked as a commit can be.

Awesome, the comparison is available now. I've also got the qa-frontpage
to find this issue and start submitting builds (this time for most
systems, not just x86_64-linux).

The QA link at the top (of https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63521 ) should
now also take you to the relevant page.

There's now some waiting to do for the builds to happen, but also more
work needed on the qa-frontpage to better show any breakages and
failures that occur.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #42 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:46:38 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Good signature from 5E28A33B0B84F577 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> (trust ultimate) created at 2023-05-25T10:18:32+0100 using RSA]]
>
> Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:
>>
>>>> Maybe the branch could be rebased or master could be merged in? If you
>>>> pick the latest commit with a green tick by it from [1], then that
>>>> should mean the data service is able to perform the comparison.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a plan.  Nicolas?
>>
>> I rebased the branch on top of c57693846c7c6586c6cd1b4e4002fe399e3a2c42,
>> which is as green-ticked as a commit can be.
>
> Awesome, the comparison is available now. I've also got the qa-frontpage
> to find this issue and start submitting builds (this time for most
> systems, not just x86_64-linux).
>
> The QA link at the top (of https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63521 ) should
> now also take you to the relevant page.
>
> There's now some waiting to do for the builds to happen, but also more
> work needed on the qa-frontpage to better show any breakages and
> failures that occur.

So I still need to do this, however the more significant problem is that
master has diverged significantly (in part at least due to the eudev
change [1] not going to core-updates/another branch).

1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-05/msg00330.html

I've got the qa-frontpage to flag this now, so there should be a warning
at the top of [2] saying there's too many changes between the merge base
and master.

2: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team

Would you be able to rebase the branch again?

Thanks,

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #45 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2023 22:08:49 +0200

Hello,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> So I still need to do this, however the more significant problem is that
> master has diverged significantly (in part at least due to the eudev
> change [1] not going to core-updates/another branch).
>
> 1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-05/msg00330.html
>
> I've got the qa-frontpage to flag this now, so there should be a warning
> at the top of [2] saying there's too many changes between the merge base
> and master.
>
> 2: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team
>
> Would you be able to rebase the branch again?

I rebased the branch on top of 75bdd4b05253c0e6ca5399f60e424f0f00fdb673,
which is green.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Message #48 received at 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 63521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2023 10:31:55 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hey,

Substitute availability is looking pretty good for tex-team now [1], it
seems that for most architectures, it only took ~24 hours to recover
from the rebase.

1: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/tex-team

For i686-linux, bordeaux.guix.gnu.org is slow to catch up due to lack of
hardware, and the machine for powerpc64le-linux is temporarily off at
the moment.

I think tex-team is good to merge.

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #53 received at 63521-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 63521-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#63521] Request for merging "tex-team" branch
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2023 18:18:04 +0200

Hello,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> I think tex-team is good to merge.

I concur. Merged. Thank you.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.