Hi,
Just realized while searching for leftovers in this thread that this last
bit of the discussion was still not over.
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:59:06PM +0200, intrigeri wrote:
>
> [This is about builds triggered by uploads to our APT repository.]
>
> anonym wrote (30 Mar 2015 07:48:28 GMT) :
> > On 29/03/15 15:04, bertagaz wrote:
> >> However, one point it raises (added to the blueprint) is determining who
> >> would be notified of this kind of build on failure.
>
> Given the way we've chosen to implement post-APT-upload builds for
> this first iteration, I have my doubts wrt. whether we can distinguish
> such builds from other ones. It may be that we simply can't, so
> perhaps it doesn't make much sense to discuss failure notification for
> this case in isolation from the general case... because we won't be
> able to implement a different behaviour (yet). Did I miss something?
Agree it doesn't make much sense.
> So, below I'll discuss the general case of build failure notification.
>
> > Wild (possibly unrelated) idea: instead of only notifying the author of
> > the last commit of a topic branch, what about notifying all authors of
> > the topic branch since it deviated from the base branch? E.g.
>
> > git log --pretty="format:%an <%ae>" ${BASE_BRANCH}.. | sort -u
>
> Interesting. I seem to remember having seen something like that
> available as an option in Jenkins' Git plugin. I suggest we start by
> notifying the author of the last commit, and keep this alternate idea
> in mind if that's not enough. Thoughts?
Added it to the blueprint as a future possible enhancement if we feel it's
needed.
> > Also, I guess we need to filter out authors that are not Tails "core"
> > developers, so they do not get build failure notifications. This applies
> > to both packages uploaded (when we upload a package built by a 3rd
> > party), and Git (patches). Hmm.
>
> Why?
I think on the contrary it might be useful for people that are not core
devs to get notifications on build failure.
> > This makes me think that we should perhaps look at Git committer
> > name/email in Git instead of the author.
>
> Indeed, Git has separate committer and author "metadata fields" for
> each commit. But I don't understand what exactly you're suggesting we
> use them for -- may you please elaborate on this idea?
I don't think it's that important. The only use case I see where it would
change who gets the notification would be when one of us import a patch
we received. Then, it is interesting still to use the author field, as it
means that the notification would be sent to the one who actually wrote
the patch, and not just to the one who merged it. Or maybe we want both of
them to be notified?
bert.
