[PATCH] doc: contributing: Add guidance on reverting commits.

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Christopher Baines
  • Maxim Cournoyer
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Christopher Baines
Severity
normal

Debbugs page

Christopher Baines wrote 3 months ago
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
105caea83cc475bd2b89acf6be9b1ad2f2daf227.1734543812.git.mail@cbaines.net
Particularly to cover the case where things might need to happen with the
build farms if changes are reverted.

* doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add guidance on reverting commits.

Change-Id: Iba320b76b0927b693c75054b5473a50bdd77c7ee
---
doc/contributing.texi | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

Toggle diff (29 lines)
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index d4784de452..c94ae940fa 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -2945,6 +2945,20 @@ Commit Access
a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving
processes so that it's less likely to reoccur.
+@subsubsection Reverting commits
+
+Like normal commits, the commit message should state why the changes are
+being made, which in this case would be why the commits are being
+reverted.
+
+If the changes are being reverted because they led to excessive number
+of packages being affected, then a decision should be made whether to
+allow the build farms to build the changes, or whether to avoid
+this. For the bordeaux build farm, commits can be ignored by adding them
+to the @code{ignore-commits} list in the
+@code{build-from-guix-data-service} record, found in the bayfront
+machine configuration.
+
@subsection Commit Revocation
In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have

base-commit: 2185b5ad3d252774ae633a90e03d34cc24b95c38
--
2.46.0
Maxim Cournoyer wrote 3 months ago
(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)
87cyhoo2wy.fsf@gmail.com
Hi Christopher,

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

Toggle quote (33 lines)
> Particularly to cover the case where things might need to happen with the
> build farms if changes are reverted.
>
> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add guidance on reverting commits.
>
> Change-Id: Iba320b76b0927b693c75054b5473a50bdd77c7ee
> ---
> doc/contributing.texi | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> index d4784de452..c94ae940fa 100644
> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> @@ -2945,6 +2945,20 @@ Commit Access
> a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving
> processes so that it's less likely to reoccur.
>
> +@subsubsection Reverting commits
> +
> +Like normal commits, the commit message should state why the changes are
> +being made, which in this case would be why the commits are being
> +reverted.
> +
> +If the changes are being reverted because they led to excessive number
> +of packages being affected, then a decision should be made whether to
> +allow the build farms to build the changes, or whether to avoid
> +this. For the bordeaux build farm, commits can be ignored by adding them
> +to the @code{ignore-commits} list in the
> +@code{build-from-guix-data-service} record, found in the bayfront
> +machine configuration.
> +

It makes sense to me, but note that I'm increasingly weary of adding
more to this already lengthy section.

It'll be nice when we finally have something sitting between us and the
git server to automate checks such as 'oh, this rebuilds too much,
sorry, you'll need to create a feature branch' or 'oops, the test suite
failed', etc.

--
Thanks,
Maxim
Christopher Baines wrote 2 months ago
(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)
87ttaf8u4w.fsf@cbaines.net
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (43 lines)
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Particularly to cover the case where things might need to happen with the
>> build farms if changes are reverted.
>>
>> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add guidance on reverting commits.
>>
>> Change-Id: Iba320b76b0927b693c75054b5473a50bdd77c7ee
>> ---
>> doc/contributing.texi | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
>> index d4784de452..c94ae940fa 100644
>> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
>> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
>> @@ -2945,6 +2945,20 @@ Commit Access
>> a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving
>> processes so that it's less likely to reoccur.
>>
>> +@subsubsection Reverting commits
>> +
>> +Like normal commits, the commit message should state why the changes are
>> +being made, which in this case would be why the commits are being
>> +reverted.
>> +
>> +If the changes are being reverted because they led to excessive number
>> +of packages being affected, then a decision should be made whether to
>> +allow the build farms to build the changes, or whether to avoid
>> +this. For the bordeaux build farm, commits can be ignored by adding them
>> +to the @code{ignore-commits} list in the
>> +@code{build-from-guix-data-service} record, found in the bayfront
>> +machine configuration.
>> +
>
> It makes sense to me, but note that I'm increasingly weary of adding
> more to this already lengthy section.
>
> It'll be nice when we finally have something sitting between us and the
> git server to automate checks such as 'oh, this rebuilds too much,
> sorry, you'll need to create a feature branch' or 'oops, the test suite
> failed', etc.

Thanks for taking a look, I've pushed this to master as
061c5820d1bacde60782b3d82ffb9770454dc658.

And yeah, I agree it would be good to have automation/process to prevent
these issues, this is just a stopgap measure.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=nnLk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 74950@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 74950
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch
You may also tag this issue. See list of standard tags. For example, to set the confirmed and easy tags
mumi command -t +confirmed -t +easy
Or, remove the moreinfo tag and set the help tag
mumi command -t -moreinfo -t +help