Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > Hello, > > Am Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 06:51:26PM +0000 schrieb Christopher Baines: >> I think more fundamentally there's a lack of interest/buy-in > > I think there is a lot of interest, everybody seemed to be quite happy > when QA worked, and patches with the green button were merged rather > quickly. > > In my opinion the problem is that you are the only person who knows the > system; right now, for instance, > https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org/activity > shows very low "plan sizes" and x86 machines that are far from busy. > At the same time, QA at > https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/master > shows that there is a big lack of i686 package substitutes from master. > So something is broken, and I am looking helplessly at the situation > (some of the idle machines being in my living room...) without the faintest > idea of what to do.
I agree that me being the only person who knows the system is a problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Beyond the usual stuff of just making things more transparent and understandable, plus writing more high level documentation. > Are these bugs in one of the components? Or just a problem of bad > parameterisation of the movable parts? Or a lack of computing power > in a central machine? I think this current issue of builds not happening when they should is a consequence of some problem that occurred when I was deploying this change [1]. 1: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/build-coordinator.git/commit/guix-build-coordinator/coordinator.scm?id=40140d2e9051734ea773b9787f77d0bf2bf69e18 I manually checked a build earlier today, and the all_inputs_built value in the database wasn't correct, which explains why the build hasn't started when it should. I'm working on some code to check and correct the out of date values. > Do you have a suggestion of how to onboard people, have them discover the > system and being empowered to help? I had wanted to discuss this at the > Guix Days, but finally did not feel well enough for engaging more with > people and topics. As I say above, I think there's still more to do in making QA and the services surrounding it more transparent, that is easier to understand just from the information that's made available. I'm not sure what to do beyond. The qa-frontpage for example is specifically designed so that you can run it locally, to aid with development. Obviously it's not going to be able to submit builds, but my hope was that this would make hacking on it easier given it's mostly stateless. I don't know if this has helped anyone though. I'm open to suggestions, and I'm more than happy to try and work through problems with people.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
