Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] signoffs are dead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I am replying to arch-general because arch-dev-public is closed to most users. On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:09:41 -1000 Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
Dear all,
For a while now packages in [testing] have gotten little to no signoffs and I've been moving mine to [core] after a week without feedback. I suspect many of you have been doing this too. Here's the signoff reports over the last ten days:
- June 19: 0 signoffs - June 20: 6 from me, 4 from anthraxx - June 21: 0 - June 22: 5 from me - June 23: 2 from demize - June 24: 1 from me - June 25: 0 - June 26: 1 from me - June 27: 3 from me, 1 from eworm - June 28: 3 from heftig, 2 from arojas
So I've decided to shorten the wait in [testing] to 48 hours. Many updates to [core] packages include security fixes and they have better move sooner rather than later. We used to be able to gather enough signoffs to move these within a day or two, and that's what I intend to do with or without signoffs.
Any comment, and especially any other idea to fix this situation, is welcome.
Cheers.
First, I am an Arch user (for 3 years now) not an Arch dev, and I realize I have no right to tell anyone how to run the distribution. What follows is just my personal recommendation based on working software QA professionally. With that said, I think eliminating signoffs is a bad idea. Signoffs ensure some form of quality control. A signoff is an explicit approval from someone that the package is satisfactory to his/her standards. A potential signee has a completely different perspective than the packager and a different way of verifying that the packager's package is correct. This sort of approval process catches errors that would otherwise escape the packager's notice. Simply waiting a period of time without hearing complaints is not equivalent to explicit approval from others. I have personally experienced several breakages in the past several months--more than usual. A few were big enough that simply running 'foo - --version' should have revealed a problem (i.e. linking problems). A signoff process would have very likely caught these problems. IMHO, the correct thing to do is remind other developers of the signoff policy. (And the above post to arch-dev-general certainly does just that.) Encouraging another set of eyes to look at someone's work and say, "This looks good to me," is a very good thing and does wonders in terms of quality control. If getting security fixes pushed out is a concern, then getting the security related fixes signed off should be prioritized. (Maybe by putting in a flag that automatically triggers a mail to arch-dev-public) Respectfully yours, - --Kyle Terrien -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXczI6AAoJEN5rMzXPJBsQASIP+gLGiQbQVrg/mNVDacXaHuEK 8H3QQz9amQMwgQXq8Mh17HWfbiQMQMWD48O9CBP+fUyWLVPOxs6g4H/aXFiIm4G+ Qw6/vWfgQaGjY60nLJ7D8/NVq9PwXSPEYF1cA8/6D7JtuotwXxCFENiNR9Qki7Un 3QCXRI6Z/KKGcpBvpIsa++qDeZuXnSTy00ZJO5EFYxTi+AUBEyffHX/bS2IUCOkC tUWxtoVIix4buD32/tCnPz19wku9MylddYBzNuB1qCD1NG6XLsxmn8WiHGeoiy+E uFwjxPgDx0MaldNNJzubC2LQD/osdTDTTPwDf2M0c802FI+pHxlj/Dk9imz86NFA 9xPH8WJ1cfiVTue0BkRJXlR2eI0VIPSqAbpcDCfzCwYbrFuFoqwszpET03PtF/Y4 5tfZHLODiFpDc9Whu5o4ejzf4p/eMUN3xmwUp+8cguFcSmjBSPvYvRbgI8puiPRm Al5xYxnrmghEf9R5fIRUWoHlsGNNMrmd1MKquJ6i1+Dkf0pmUK4t58G3crWjFb7+ laMUKYRmH+LwYhxvET562E8EM8QYYtow+PietZssC7ZhjGa1sG70FahQWCijmIj6 TdpfCiNgmQ8AF4C4JXhzZvONtdYzUeNSgiv/FkA9T4n9Xje/ZCUhyM+inaqmA/5A ComaWc2SjeM8gTBfdPQa =E42/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:28:10 -0700, Kyle Terrien via arch-general wrote:
I have personally experienced several breakages in the past several months--more than usual. A few were big enough that simply running 'foo - --version' should have revealed a problem (i.e. linking problems). A signoff process would have very likely caught these problems.
Could you provide some examples, by linking to the bug reports? Excepted of issues that happen, if upstream decides to make a change of course, as e.g. gtk or qt did, I couldn't notice more issues as usual. Regards, Ralf
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 07:36:49AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Excepted of issues that happen, if upstream decides to make a change of course, as e.g. gtk or qt did, I couldn't notice more issues as usual.
Same here, no more issues than usual, and I even run a bastard version of Arch with my own meta-repo. Would have probably noticed.
I've noticed more issues than usual in the last few weeks as well. Including one big issue that prevented my whole system from booting (just a black screen with flashing cursor, not even a command prompt let alone my lightdm login screen). I didn't file bug reports for those, since I am very busy with studying, so in case such a bug happens I just restore my binaries from a backup and use that until the issue is resolved by updates. That's faster than searching for and reproducing the issue to file a bug report. I guess some of those issues might have been prevented by sign offs. Quality assurance is a big deal in modern computer systems because of their complexity. That applies even for non-profit organisations like the Arch Linux community is.
On 29 Jun 2016, at 09:06, Jack L. Frost <fbt@fleshless.org> wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 07:36:49AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: I couldn't notice more issues as usual Same here, no more issues than usual
Please don't top post. http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html -- Cheers Jayesh Badwaik
Hey there, At some point I started to receive those "signoff" message on one of the list I'm subscribed to. I searched on the wiki what that meant, but with no result. I see that on https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_repositories you mention in one sentence what it is, but sorry it's not clear what I can do about that. I also spend maybe half an hour trying to find that in my profile, with no result either. I concluded that maybe it was something for only trusted users, and it was just not my business. Maybe the first step before considering the signoff "dead" would be to educate people on how to do that? It might be obvious to the Trusted users on how everything works. As far as I am concerned, I have no idea of the packaging process apart from AUR. All the technical parts are now natural to me, but all the "human" process is completely obscure. Kind regards, (Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 07:28:10PM -0700) Kyle Terrien via arch-general :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
I am replying to arch-general because arch-dev-public is closed to most users.
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:09:41 -1000 Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
Dear all,
For a while now packages in [testing] have gotten little to no signoffs and I've been moving mine to [core] after a week without feedback. I suspect many of you have been doing this too. Here's the signoff reports over the last ten days:
- June 19: 0 signoffs - June 20: 6 from me, 4 from anthraxx - June 21: 0 - June 22: 5 from me - June 23: 2 from demize - June 24: 1 from me - June 25: 0 - June 26: 1 from me - June 27: 3 from me, 1 from eworm - June 28: 3 from heftig, 2 from arojas
So I've decided to shorten the wait in [testing] to 48 hours. Many updates to [core] packages include security fixes and they have better move sooner rather than later. We used to be able to gather enough signoffs to move these within a day or two, and that's what I intend to do with or without signoffs.
Any comment, and especially any other idea to fix this situation, is welcome.
Cheers.
First, I am an Arch user (for 3 years now) not an Arch dev, and I realize I have no right to tell anyone how to run the distribution. What follows is just my personal recommendation based on working software QA professionally.
With that said, I think eliminating signoffs is a bad idea.
Signoffs ensure some form of quality control. A signoff is an explicit approval from someone that the package is satisfactory to his/her standards. A potential signee has a completely different perspective than the packager and a different way of verifying that the packager's package is correct. This sort of approval process catches errors that would otherwise escape the packager's notice. Simply waiting a period of time without hearing complaints is not equivalent to explicit approval from others.
I have personally experienced several breakages in the past several months--more than usual. A few were big enough that simply running 'foo - --version' should have revealed a problem (i.e. linking problems). A signoff process would have very likely caught these problems.
IMHO, the correct thing to do is remind other developers of the signoff policy. (And the above post to arch-dev-general certainly does just that.) Encouraging another set of eyes to look at someone's work and say, "This looks good to me," is a very good thing and does wonders in terms of quality control.
If getting security fixes pushed out is a concern, then getting the security related fixes signed off should be prioritized. (Maybe by putting in a flag that automatically triggers a mail to arch-dev-public)
Respectfully yours, - --Kyle Terrien -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXczI6AAoJEN5rMzXPJBsQASIP+gLGiQbQVrg/mNVDacXaHuEK 8H3QQz9amQMwgQXq8Mh17HWfbiQMQMWD48O9CBP+fUyWLVPOxs6g4H/aXFiIm4G+ Qw6/vWfgQaGjY60nLJ7D8/NVq9PwXSPEYF1cA8/6D7JtuotwXxCFENiNR9Qki7Un 3QCXRI6Z/KKGcpBvpIsa++qDeZuXnSTy00ZJO5EFYxTi+AUBEyffHX/bS2IUCOkC tUWxtoVIix4buD32/tCnPz19wku9MylddYBzNuB1qCD1NG6XLsxmn8WiHGeoiy+E uFwjxPgDx0MaldNNJzubC2LQD/osdTDTTPwDf2M0c802FI+pHxlj/Dk9imz86NFA 9xPH8WJ1cfiVTue0BkRJXlR2eI0VIPSqAbpcDCfzCwYbrFuFoqwszpET03PtF/Y4 5tfZHLODiFpDc9Whu5o4ejzf4p/eMUN3xmwUp+8cguFcSmjBSPvYvRbgI8puiPRm Al5xYxnrmghEf9R5fIRUWoHlsGNNMrmd1MKquJ6i1+Dkf0pmUK4t58G3crWjFb7+ laMUKYRmH+LwYhxvET562E8EM8QYYtow+PietZssC7ZhjGa1sG70FahQWCijmIj6 TdpfCiNgmQ8AF4C4JXhzZvONtdYzUeNSgiv/FkA9T4n9Xje/ZCUhyM+inaqmA/5A ComaWc2SjeM8gTBfdPQa =E42/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Ismael
participants (6)
-
Ismael Bouya
-
Jack L. Frost
-
Jayesh Badwaik
-
Kyle Terrien
-
Lukas Rose
-
Ralf Mardorf