Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
From: Bálint Réczey <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:58:54 +0100

2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>:
> Hash: SHA256
> On 06/22/2013 09:43 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>> 2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>> On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>>>> On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/20/2013 02:17 PM, Gerald Combs wrote:
>>>>>>>> Advantates: - I'm not sure that an in-house equivalent (e.g.
>>>>>>>> Gerrit plus a private repository) would be better than what
>>>>>>>> Github offers.
>>>>>>> Yes, Gerrit is better than github:
>>>>>> Presumably you mean "Gerrit plus a private repository is better
>>>>>> than github", as Gerrit, as far as I can tell, is just software
>>>>>> that works with a Git repository.
>>>>> Yes, although managing repositories being what Gerrit do, Gerrit
>>>>> without a least one repository would be a very boring application.
>>>> :-)
>>>> I have started describing a Gerrit based workflow which IMO would fit
>>>> to the project at http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/Workflow .
>>>> Please check it and share your opinion.
>>> "Code is building and tests are passing on all platforms. (Tests
>>> automatically start when at least one Core Developer gives +1 or +2 to
>>> prevent overloading or cracking the build servers.)"
>>> Why do not build and test all patchsets submitted?  Is that a limitation
>>> of the build servers?  Having Jenkins automatically verify your patchset
>>> is IMO one of the nice feature of Gerrit, and it will lower the workload
>>> of core devs if building and testing are done before they start looking
>>> at the patchset.
>> Build can be triggered by patchset submissin, too, but it would require
>> more build server resources. Usually not the first version of the
>> changeset will be accepted especially from new contributors and this means
>> more builds.
> My view is the opposite: New contributors patchsets will probably be rejected
> anyway (does not build, does not pass test, etc...), so having the system
> doing that lowers the burden on core developers, who they can focus on more
> high level problems.
>> Note that Core Developers would not have to wait since they can give +1 for
>> their own changesets.
>> The other reason behind requiring a +1 from someone we trust is that
>> otherwise it would be easy to prepare a changeset which does unspeakable
>> things to the build servers which we don't want to happen. Without
>> requiring +1 we would have to prepare build systems to cope with malicious
>> commits.
> That is a good point (basically because of the halting problem).  But builds
> are done in isolation (i.e a git clone is done each time), so apart using too
> much resources or never ending, there is no harm that can be done to the
> infrastructure.  And there is a Jenkins plugin to abort a build if it is stuck.
I was concerned about using the buildbots for attacking other systems, too,
but all of those threats can be handled and we have time for setting
up build bots

I have updated the proposal to start tests for every change and allow
Code Devs to
bypass peer review.

Comments are still welcome. :-)