hi, On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:22 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Sack <a...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert <o...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > >> hi, > >> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot. > >>> > >>> Let's keep those separate and look at them one by one: > >>> > >>> >From what I see you basically propose three main things: > >>> > >>> 1. lets increase velocity of image production so we get 2-3 images > >>> produced in devel-proposed per day > >>> 2. make cron the technology we use to schedule and kick those images > >>> 2-3 times a day > >>> 3. increase manual testing done before "releasing" images create a > >>> broader touch-release team that will include avengers and manual > >>> testers and community etc. > >>> > >>> Let me look at them one by one and then give a bullet summary of what > >>> I believe we should indeed tweak for now... > >>> > >>> On 1. > >>> ====== > >>> > >>> I think 1. is and was the goal. So I think noone disagrees with the > >>> benefits of having 2-3 checkpoints a day and we should just do it. > >>> Note: it actually always was that way when I ran the landing team and > >>> during release time. I believe we still do it, but if we don't we > >>> should certainly ensure that we get back to do this. > >> on the majority of days in the past we only had one image build per day > >> simply because there were to many landings to wait for and in the end we > >> had huge change sets that burned a lot of manpower when searching where > >> a regression comes from. > >> > > > > Let's fix that process problem first. > > > > BTW, I got pointed to the fact that there is no real data to support > that there is a problem. I checked quickly for this week (the first > week with CI engine operational) and the week before the CI engine > went down. Here the data: > > proposed images produced this week: > > Monday: 1 (CI engine came back) > Tuesday: 3 > Wed: 2 > Thu: 2 > Fri: 1 (another one coming) > > proposed images produced the week beforee the CI engine went down. > > 3, 3, 2, 3, 1 (last day engine went down half way through) > > So yes, we should have continued producing images at that rate when > the engine was down and yes, we can do better at scheduling and > communicating predictable image time windows. > > However, I don't see data that there is a real issue on image > production when we use our smart landing team to schedule and trigger > image production. there is no issue in image production, there is an issue with finding the offending package when there is breakage or a regression, as I said in my original intro, I pushed for more images for the last few weeks, you have to go back further...
as an example see: http://people.canonical.com/~ogra/touch-image-stats/20131107.changes now imagine your session does not start, and tell me which package is at fault without investing an hour to find the offending change. ciao oli
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
