On 11/7/23 02:38, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2023, at 21:19, Christophe Lyon >> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have inherited Martin Liška's buildbot script that checks that >>> all sorts of autotools generated files, mainly configure scripts, >>> were re-generated correctly when appropriate. While the checks >>> are hopefully useful, they report issues surprisingly often and >>> reporting them feels especially unproductive. >>> >>> Could such checks be added to our server side push hooks so that >>> commits introducing these breakages would get refused >>> automatically. While the check might be a bit expensive, it only >>> needs to be run on files touching the generated files and/or the >>> files these are generated from.
$0.02. We should move in a direction where all server side push hooks removed. Removing the hooks allows for easy repo replication, and sharing load. Such checks should all be moved IMO into pre-commit CI, or post-commit CI. >>> Alternatively, Maxim, you seem to have an infrastructure that is >>> capable of sending email. Would you consider adding the check to >>> your buildbot instance and report issues automatically? The >>> level of totally >> >> After the discussions we had during Cauldron, I actually thought >> we should add such a bot. >> >> Initially I was thinking about adding this as a "precommit" check, >> to make sure the autogenerated files were submitted correctly, but >> I realized that the policy is actually not to send autogenerated >> files as part of the patch (thus making pre-commit check >> impracticable in such cases, unless we autogenerate those files >> after applying the patch) >> >> I understand you mean to run this as a post-commit bot, meaning we >> would continue to "accept" broken commits, but now automatically >> send a notification, asking for a prompt fix? >> >> We can probably implement that, indeed. Is that the general >> agreement? > > [CC: Siddhesh, Carlos] > > Hi Martin, > > I agree with Christophe, and we can add various source-level checks > and wrap them up as a post-commit job. The job will then send out > email reports to developers whose patches failed it. This is a great way to handle this until we have more consensus around other kinds of worfklows. > Where the current script is located? These checks would be useful > for all GNU Toolchain projects -- binutils/GDB, GCC, Glibc and, > maybe, Newlib -- so it would be useful to put it in a separate > "gnutools" repo. I think Siddhesh and Carlos are looking into > creating such a repo on gitlab? I can make any repo we want here: https://gitlab.com/gnutools -- Cheers, Carlos.
