Infrastructure

Differences between revisions 1 and 3 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 1 as of 2011-11-18 10:17:08
Size: 5026
Editor: cjwatson
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2011-11-18 11:43:30
Size: 5017
Editor: cjwatson
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 16: Line 16:
== Rationale == == Current state ==
Line 18: Line 18:
== User stories ==

== Assumptions ==
We have lots of tools for tracking problems in the development release. Many have difficult to parse output:
 * http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.txt
 * http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/priority-mismatches
 * http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/architecture-mismatches
  * plain text files with no annotations, no bug links
 * [[http://conflictchecker.ubuntu.com/possible-conflicts/|Conflict checker]]
  * giant text files, no annotations, no bug links, no ability to blacklist
 * [[http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/|FTBFS]]
 * [[http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html|NBS]]
  * no bug links
 * [[http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/|Transition tracker]]
  * need overview index
  * merge from Debian trunk
  * no bug links (not needed for simple rebuilds, but often ties into build failures)
  * should show build failures more explicitly
 * http://merges.ubuntu.com/ / [[http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/oldmerges/|stale merges (ubuntuwire)]]
 * [[http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/uehs/|UEHS (ubuntuwire)]] - is anyone still using it? (more useful from Debian perspective)
  * out of scope for plusonemaint
 * [[http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/bugs/rcbugs/|rcbugs (ubuntuwire)]]
Line 60: Line 76:
Lots of tools. Many have difficult to parse output:
 - http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.txt
 - priority-mismatches
 - architecture-mismatches
   - plain text files with no annotations, no bug links
 - conflict checker: http://conflictchecker.ubuntu.com/possible-conflicts/oneiric/main.txt
   - giant text files, no annotations, no bug links, no ability to blacklist
 - FTBFS: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/
 - NBS: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html
   - no bug links
 - transition tracker
   - need overview index
   - merge from Debian trunk
   - no bug links (not needed for simple rebuilds, but often ties into build failures)
   - should show build failures more explicitly
 - merges.ubuntu.com / stale merges (ubuntuwire)
 - UEHS (ubuntuwire) - is anyone still using it? (more useful from Debian perspective)
   - out of scope for plusonemaint
 - rcbugs (ubuntuwire): http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/bugs/rcbugs/
Line 82: Line 78:
    http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html the new version though maybe not as useful http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html the new version though maybe not as useful
Line 86: Line 82:
 - extend to release critical stuff? currently targetted at bitesize stuff.
  - e.g. current version of NBS data, build failures on test rebuilds etc.
  - fix editing (adding comments?)
 - per package
 - can mark opportunities as irrelevant right now
 * extend to release critical stuff? currently targeted at bitesize stuff.
  * e.g. current version of NBS data, build failures on test rebuilds etc.
  * fix editing (adding comments?)
 * per package
 * can mark opportunities as irrelevant right now
Line 93: Line 89:
 - merge with http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/oldmerges/ ?  * merge with http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/oldmerges/ ?
Line 98: Line 94:
 - QA is taking over mvo's automatic upgrade testing
 - repurpose antimony (after CD building moves to new machine) as lintian(?) and piuparts runner
 * QA is taking over mvo's automatic upgrade testing
 * repurpose antimony (after CD building moves to new machine) as lintian(?) and piuparts runner
Line 106: Line 102:

Work items:
[] Take over and update the weather report
[broder] Set up lintian lab: DONE
[] Set up piuparts
[] Generate separate report from lintian of Ubuntu-specific packages
[] Generate JSON output from lintian/piuparts for harvest

Summary

We have many reports that help us keep track of automatically-detectable problems in the development release (FTBFS, NBS, component-mismatches, the conflict checker, the transition tracker, etc.). These are all well and good, but they are rather disconnected from each other and in many cases do not provide very good facilities for distributing work among developers. If we want to drive these reports consistently to zero, some time spent on infrastructure would be worthwhile. What can we do to improve matters?

Release Note

This is not a user-visible specification.

Current state

We have lots of tools for tracking problems in the development release. Many have difficult to parse output:

Design

You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.

Implementation

This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:

UI Changes

Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this

Code Changes

Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.

Migration

Include:

  • data migration, if any
  • redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
  • how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.

Test/Demo Plan

It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release. Please add an entry to http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Coverage/NewFeatures for tracking test coverage.

This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.

Unresolved issues

This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.

BoF agenda and discussion

Use this section to take notes during the BoF; if you keep it in the approved spec, use it for summarising what was discussed and note any options that were rejected.

Reports should be better connected to each other, live in (or be linked to from) one place, be easily perusable
http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/weatherreport.html (currently dormant?)
http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html the new version though maybe not as useful

Might be better to have a consolidated report listing packages with problems, rather than having to work through multiple reports
 http://harvest.ubuntu.com/opportunities/
 * extend to release critical stuff?  currently targeted at bitesize stuff.
  * e.g. current version of NBS data, build failures on test rebuilds etc.
  * fix editing (adding comments?)
 * per package
 * can mark opportunities as irrelevant right now

merges.ubuntu.com - want to keep generally static,  needs to be styled a bit.
 * merge with http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/oldmerges/ ?

reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html - stale?

Automatic upgrade testing
 * QA is taking over mvo's automatic upgrade testing
 * repurpose antimony (after CD building moves to new machine) as lintian(?) and piuparts runner

By comparison:
http://lpqateam.canonical.com/

Lintian instance - useful to keep unpacked?  consider doing so?
piuparts.debian.org


CategorySpec

PlusOneMaintenanceTeam/Specs/Infrastructure (last edited 2014-07-01 13:31:40 by cjwatson)