On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Bálint Réczey <balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 06/22/2013 09:43 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> 2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> -----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
>>>>>>> <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
> properly.
>
> I have updated the proposal to start tests for every change and allow
> Code Devs to
> bypass peer review.
>
> Comments are still welcome. :-)
Dear all,
hmm. From a process point of view: How long do I need to wait until condition 2
is fulfilled. For me this looks like a race condition. If I get a 2+ before a 2-
it gets in, if it is the other way, it doesn't...
Anyway... I'm not sure if this process really improves wireshark as a project.
It all depends on others willing to to do peer reviews. In an industrial environment,
you can force developers to do that. In an open source community, you can't.
I'm not saying, that the peer reviews won't be done, but I'm not sure if they will.
The current process puts responsibility on the core developer who commits a
change. Personally, I don't think it is bad if this breaks the build on
some buildbot, I only this it is bad if the committer doesn't care. This
worked out pretty well in the past, I think. I only run the head version
of wireshark and can usually build it (thanks to the Mac OS X buildbots).
If a core developer didn't want to take responsibility for a patch, he
could contact others to get feedback on questions. This also worked in
the past since you contacted people who also are interested in the subject.
The same responsibility applies for changes being compiled by the
buildbots. Each such change comes from a core developer. I'm hesitating
to allow an arbitrary patch to compile on the buildbots where we have
no one being responsible for it in any way. Some of the buildbots run
older software, some of them are not hardened in any way.
Does someone have experience with an open source project comparable to
Wireshark requesting peer review? Linux wants patches to be signed, but
they have maintainers, Mozilla/Firefox has payed developers...
Don't get me wrong: I'm against introducing more procedural constraints,
if it helps wireshark as a project. I just think that the current situation
isn't too bad and I'm not sure how to make sure non-trivial peer reviews
get done...
Best regards
Michael
>
> Cheers,
> Balint
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
