Hi, could we work reviewing the changelog itself into our MR review practices used inside teams?
kgunn/bfiller/thostr/etc.: what do you think? - Alexander On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Oliver Grawert <o...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > hi, > > Due to new breakage with the upstart-app-launch renaming and thus > (again) massive smoke test breakage we are again close to > TRAINCON-0 ... > > During the last days the landing team had to research all this > breakage, for which we would usually just skim over the changelogs on > the utopic-changes mailing list to quickly top level identify the issue > and then dig deeper into the code of the suspicious package. > > With the current quality of changelog entries people provide to us this > is not possible at all. We have to dig into each and every changeset and > actually need to understand what code changes in there do, changelog > entries end up being something like > "* rename foo to bar" or "* new feature blah" across ten packages with > no detailed explanation at all what code was changed, if there were > added or removed dependencies or any additional code reworks. > > Having to do this deep code analysis has (and still is today) costed a > huge amount of hours to the landing team which eventually makes us end > up in TRAINCON-0 because we can not risk to land new stuff if former > issues are not resolved first. > > As one of the persons on the landing team who is in charge to nod off > packaging changes I will from today on *NOT ACK ANY PACKAGING CHANGES* > that do not: > > a) have a descriptive enough changelog entry so that a developer not > affiliated with your code can understand what changed, why it changed > and where it changed in the tree. > > b) add or remove dependencies without mentioning them in the changelog > > Please try to be at least minimally descriptive so others know what you > changed in your code, this will speed us all up if something goes wrong > and prevent possible TRAINCON-0 situations in the future (and will also > make our legal dept. happy in 5 years when we have that patent cause > where we need to present code to proof we had prior art in 2014 ;) ). > > ciao > oli > > -- > 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 > -- 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
