Release testing and the relationship between 'bzr selftest' and plugins
jelmer at samba.org
Fri Mar 16 12:44:20 UTC 2012
Am 16/03/12 09:22, schrieb Vincent Ladeuil:
>>>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:
> >> I'd say soft dependencies in bzr-core and build dependencies for
> >> packages or is should that be recommendations instead ?
> > We have to bundle the build dependencies, otherwise the plugins can't be
> > used and thus bundling them becomes pointless (since e.g. PQM will skip
> > all the tests).
> > If we require e.g. PQM to have the dependencies pre-installed then we
> > end up with another problem, which is ensuring that the right build
> > dependencies are installed.
> Which we need to address one way or the other if we want to test the
> plugins anyway.
> Now, PQM will have a hard time as the dependencies needs to be installed
> and they may change from one bzr series to the other and PQM still needs
> to run the tests for all supported series...
At that point, there isn't really that much of an advantage in bundled
plugins though. We have to have some mechanism of checking out external
code, building it and updating anyway. If we're doing that for libapr,
libsvn, subvertpy, dulwich, mercurial, qt, pyqt, etc, then we might as
well use the same mechanism to obtain a copy of the plugins.
> Which reminds me that we really want to run the tests for the supported
> series instead of just trunk (outside of pqm that is).
I thought pqm just ran on lucid?
> >> >> 2 - push plugin authors to create series targeted at bzr releases: avoid
> >> >> many maintenance issues :) This will also help installer
> >> >> builders/packagers.
> >> > For most plugins, this doesn't scale with the number of release series
> >> > and the size of the plugins. It isn't worth the effort to maintain
> >> > separate release series if it's trivial to be compatible with more
> >> > versions of bzr.
> >> Balance to be found again, some plugins may just want to tag specific
> >> revisions for a given series if they don't evolve a lot between series.
> >> > For plugins that are tightly coupled with particular bzr versions,
> >> > like the foreign branch plugins, this is an option. But it still
> >> > wouldn't have prevented the problems we had with the 2.5
> >> > installers. Changes between beta 4 and beta 5 broke the foreign
> >> > branch plugins, and the installers shipped with an outdated
> >> > version of those plugins (from the correct release series).
> >> Sure, but at least the packagers can subscribe to the tip of a given
> >> branch and be done.
> > In practice neither of these seem to happen though.
> Huh ? Do you mean, the plugin authors don't participate enough or that
> packagers don't want to use these tricks ?
I'm not sure if it's "don't want". I think it's more of a time issue.
Both of these require significantly more time from plugin authors or
E.g. bzr-rewrite, bzr-webdav or bzr-grep don't go and tag each time a
new bzr release is out, because it usually just works with each release.
Requiring packagers to subscribe to the trunk of all the branches and
notice incompatible changes costs time too.
> qbzr maintain different series.
It's one of the notable exceptions though (together with bzr-svn).
> The osx installer (and the windows installer too AFAIK) has a script to
> download from a branch (tip) or a tag or a revid, so it's just a matter
> of providing either a branch (during betas) or a tag for stable
We still had out of date plugins in the installer, though.
> >> I think we agree far more than we disagree on most of the topics so
> >> let's address the ones we agree on ;)
> > Works for me ! :-) So, let's:
> > * Run "bzr selftest" and file bugs for issues we encounter
> > * Fix said bugs
> > * Run "bzr selftest" while we sleep
> > * Run "bzr selftest" during lunch break
> > * Run "bzr selftest" in the shower
> > * ...
> > * Can we run "bzr selftest" with a set of passing plugins installed on
> > babune? We can start with just one and add more as we verify they pass
> > the testsuite
> Yeah, that's what I was working on the last time I worked on babune bug
> fall into the rabbit hole encountering issues with subunit/testools that
> are currently mounted from my home directory instead of being properly
> deployed, the need is roughly the same (all slaves needs some deployment
> step before a job is run, the hacks I had in place start breaking when I
> upgraded to precise).
> Once this is fixed, the freebsd will regain some color and we can
> restart from there.
Which subunit/testtools issues are those? Perhaps we can do something to
get those fixed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the bazaar