ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Oliver Grawert <ogra@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi,
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:22 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert <ogra@xxxxxxxxxx> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part