You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
General Problem: Need Protocol for Commits to alpha Outside of Objectives
Ideally, alpha should be a continuous line of development from v5.32.0, unaffected by whatever is happening in blead (by any definition of 'blead' in any repository).
However, in practice, there may be problems in Perl 5 blead which predate v5.32.0 and which have an adverse impact on our ability to get GREEN results during "outside" testing.
If these problems are corrected in Perl 5 blead, we may wish to "cherry-pick" the fixes into alpha. But we should do so very judiciously, as there is always a lot of churn in Perl 5 blead, especially now.
If we decide we need to perform such a fix, we need to decide where a commit embodying such a fix stands in relation to the roadmap of Objectives we've laid out. Do we:
Include it at the very end of one 'alpha-dev' branch, re-tag that branch, and re-send it for outside testing?
Commit it directly to 'alpha' after one dev branch has been committed but before the next dev branch has been cut?
As the very first commit in a new dev branch?
All 3 options have pluses and minuses.
Case in Point
Our current working branch is alpha-dev-01-bump-version. It has been tagged twice for readiness for outside testing, most recently at tag alpha-01-MC-1. From these tags I have created the smoke-me/jkeenan/dire-wolf in the Perl 5 repository. Smoke-testers have been picking up this branch and testing it as if it were just any other Perl 5 branch.
The only worrisome smoke-testing report we've received is http://perl5.test-smoke.org/report/116073 from champion smoke-tester Carlos Guevara. This report was run on Alpine Linux -- in a way, the VMS of Linuxes -- and specifically with g++-9.3.0 on Alpine Linux. In this run, make failed on every configuration, always before compiling miniperl.
I queried Carlos about this. He called my attention to the fact that he had earlier written p5p about this: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2020/06/msg257532.html. (I should have remembered that, since I asked him to do that.) He reported that the problem had been fixed in Perl 5 blead by this commit:
commit 926c3ce35a7ef910c55cf0964c39718ef5938ca6
Author: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Tue Jun 16 13:47:35 2020 +0100
Commit: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <[email protected]>
CommitDate: Sat Jul 18 01:28:15 2020 +0100
time64: declare `tm_zone` as `const char*` unconditionally
We only ever assign from `struct tm` to `struct TM`, not the other way
around, so making this const regardless of what `struct tm` has should
be safe.
This commit was made to Perl 5 blead afterv5.32.0, so it does not yet appear in our alpha branch or any branch forked therefrom (e.g.,smoke-me/jkeenan/dire-wolf).
If we were to "cherry-pick" Ilmari's commit above into the alpha branch at some point, we would hopefully get our perl to build and test on Alpine Linux with g++-9.3.0. We don't have to rush to do this, but it does illustrate the need for us to have a more general discussion of "out-of-Objective-band" commits to alpha.
General Problem: Need Protocol for Commits to
alpha
Outside of ObjectivesIdeally,
alpha
should be a continuous line of development from v5.32.0, unaffected by whatever is happening inblead
(by any definition of 'blead' in any repository).However, in practice, there may be problems in Perl 5 blead which predate v5.32.0 and which have an adverse impact on our ability to get GREEN results during "outside" testing.
If these problems are corrected in Perl 5 blead, we may wish to "cherry-pick" the fixes into
alpha
. But we should do so very judiciously, as there is always a lot of churn in Perl 5 blead, especially now.If we decide we need to perform such a fix, we need to decide where a commit embodying such a fix stands in relation to the roadmap of Objectives we've laid out. Do we:
All 3 options have pluses and minuses.
Case in Point
Our current working branch is
alpha-dev-01-bump-version
. It has been tagged twice for readiness for outside testing, most recently at tagalpha-01-MC-1
. From these tags I have created thesmoke-me/jkeenan/dire-wolf
in the Perl 5 repository. Smoke-testers have been picking up this branch and testing it as if it were just any other Perl 5 branch.The only worrisome smoke-testing report we've received is http://perl5.test-smoke.org/report/116073 from champion smoke-tester Carlos Guevara. This report was run on Alpine Linux -- in a way, the VMS of Linuxes -- and specifically with g++-9.3.0 on Alpine Linux. In this run,
make
failed on every configuration, always before compilingminiperl
.I queried Carlos about this. He called my attention to the fact that he had earlier written p5p about this: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2020/06/msg257532.html. (I should have remembered that, since I asked him to do that.) He reported that the problem had been fixed in Perl 5 blead by this commit:
This commit was made to Perl 5 blead after
v5.32.0
, so it does not yet appear in ouralpha
branch or any branch forked therefrom (e.g.,smoke-me/jkeenan/dire-wolf
).If we were to "cherry-pick" Ilmari's commit above into the
alpha
branch at some point, we would hopefully get ourperl
to build and test on Alpine Linux with g++-9.3.0. We don't have to rush to do this, but it does illustrate the need for us to have a more general discussion of "out-of-Objective-band" commits toalpha
.@atoomic @toddr
Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: