> On 10 Mar 2022, at 23:18, Joshua Kinard <ku...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 3/10/2022 14:58, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:27 AM Joshua Kinard <ku...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 3/9/2022 16:00, Matt Turner wrote: >>>> I'd like to deprecate and ultimately remove repoman. I believe that >>>> dev-util/pkgcheck and pkgcommit (from app-portage/mgorny-dev-scripts) >>>> are far superior replacements, and it makes sense to have people using >>>> the same tool and seeing the same warnings as in the CI. >>>> >>>> Are there any useful checks or behaviors of repoman that are missing >>>> from pkgcheck and pkgcommit? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Matt >>> >>> repoman has been //the// goto tool for checking in a change since before I >>> was a developer in 2003. It does everything we need, in one simple tool. >>> Your proposal looks to replace repoman's functionality (and snark) with two >>> or more packages, including tools from a package named after a fellow >>> developer. >>> >>> Additionally, "I believe that <foo> are far superior replacements" is an >>> entirely subjective opinion and, frankly, completely invalid as >>> justification to replace a tool that has worked fine for the last 20+ years. >>> What is so fundamentally broken about repoman that cannot be fixed such >>> that it needs total replacement by multiple independent tools? Please >>> document. the pros and cons here so that we can all make an informed >>> decision.
Matt could've given more details about why pkgcheck is superior but I think this is actually showing/exposing the problem again: we've assumed that everybody should really know repoman lacks a significant number of the checks pkgcheck has, as well as being much slower. Those are the two reasons why it's superior. >> >> So here is the more basic argument, you can agree or disagree. >> >> *The goal I want is for people to commit to the tree and not break things.* > > This goal I agree with, and I am rather pedantic about. If not mildly > fearful of. We've all been there at least once in our dev-lives. It's > almost a rite of passage, if you will, to break the tree with a dumb commit > at least once. Goal is to never repeat that mistake again. > Right. I spend a fair amount of time fixing issues with repoman doesn't find but pkgcheck / CI does, or filing bugs for them. > >> If we could accomplish this with no tooling at all, that would be >> great. Sadly humans are fallible and so we have tools to check their >> work. Currently this tooling has two parts: >> - pre-push tooling that you run prior to pushing. >> - post-push CI tooling that informs you when you break the tree. >> >> So holding to our goal of not breaking the tree, it's better for >> developers to run the same QA tool in pre-push that CI is using, >> because our metric for 'breaking the tree' is the CI tool and if the >> CI tool passes locally, there is a strong likelihood it will not break >> in CI either. Note this argument is generic, I'm not even saying which >> tools are in use, or which tools are better, or anything like that. >> >> Here we see Matt discussing a workflow he finds frustrating. >> - A developer does a push. >> - Their push breaks CI. >> - He inquires about their workflow. >> - He learns they did not run the CI tool in their pre-push workflow. >> - He tells them they should run the CI tool in their pre-push workflow. >> - This happens many times, causing this thread. >> >> The point of the thread then is to convince people to run the CI tool >> in pre-push, as a matter of policy, to reduce tree breakage and reduce >> the occurrence of the above conversation. > > I stick to the officially-published method of checking and committing changes: > https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-maintenance/git/index.html > > The two tools highlighted there for the bulk of the work is repoman and > pkgdev. repoman is cited twelve times, pkgdev is cited six times. pkgcheck > is mentioned once. pkgcommit has no mentions. pkgcommit is just a wrapper around git and pkgcheck, so it is there. It's not like you aren't allowed to make your own wrappers or aliases or scripts, right? >> > > Back in mid-2002, it was exactly Gentoo's snarkness that tipped the scales > for me. I'd just given up on FreeBSD-4.x on a sparc64 machine (old Sun > Blade 100) and LFS turned out to not be a lot of fun, but Gentoo worked fine > on it. All of the colors on the terminal gave it zing and pop, and made it > rather fun to work with. rpm and apt-get were dull; emerge was cheeky and > playful! Still is to this day. > I have no objection to (and in fact would rather welcome) contributions to make other tools more "Gentoo-like". Could you make a PR or provide some patch to add some more personality to them?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
