Home page logo

wireshark logo Wireshark mailing list archives

Re: Proposed Gerrit workflow (was: Re: Notes from Sharkfest '13)
From: Bálint Réczey <balint () balintreczey hu>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 19:58:54 +0100


2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc () petit-huguenin org>:
Hash: SHA256

On 06/22/2013 09:43 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Hi Marc,

2013/6/22 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc () petit-huguenin org>:

On 06/22/2013 03:47 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Hi All,

2013/6/21 Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc () petit-huguenin org>:

On 06/20/2013 04:52 PM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Jun 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
<marc () petit-huguenin org> 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

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. :-)

Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]