Bai: So I will present some of my suggested changes to the current iteration system,
and I would also like to hear from you as well.
Bai: One of the main focus I have is that, after the build tests and usability tests
have passed, instead of merging, a label is applied to pull request. Then after all the
packages for the Tier-1 architectures have been pushed to the stable branch, we then merge
the pull request. For Tier-2 architectures, they don't affect the merging process just like before.
Bai: That being said, if you have the time and resources to build the packages for the Tier-2
architectures, you can of course do that.
Bai: This is to prevent the "rework" process on the Tier-1 architectures, as this process does not
require any testing.
Leo: I also think fully testing everything before merging is better.
Bai: We don't have testing requirements for Tier-2 architectures, so rework process on Tier-2
architectures is fine. However, inconsistencies may happen when applying rework to Tier-1 architectures.
Mag Mell: However, I still think it is not possible to avoid the rework process. Since you may find other issues down the line.
Bai: What you just said is not a problem for a rework, rather, a new "fixing" topic. If any further
issues are encountered, they don't belong to a rework process.
Bai: Also, in what condition an error like that should arise?
Leo: For example, linkage errors found by the p-vector.
Bai: I see. Besides, autobuild has partially gained the abilities to detect such errors.
Bai: autobuild also has a function called elf_deps, which will automatically populate the required
dependencies. The issue with this function is that, PKGRECOM would complicate things.
Bai: The rework process is for the packages that, after merging, it somehow could not be built successfully.
Cth451: Usually the cause is that the changes during a rebase action is not taking into account.
Bai: So we need to enforce a rule where "rebase" on the GitHub website is forbidden.
[.. Discussion regarding how the rule should be enforced omitted ..]
Leo: Actually this changed the meaning of "Approved" from "the build scripts look good" to "it's good to be merged".
Bai: Is there anything else that could be improved or changed?
[.. discussions regarding testing on loongson and purchasing devices omitted ..]
[.. discussions regarding RISC-V omitted ..]
Cyan: Can the process be simplified for things like youtube-dl and other packages with a high update frequency? Like skipping all the tests and just upload them after packaging.
Bai: If you just want to be fast, our topic-based system would be meaningless. However, I do encourage
everyone to review others' pull requests to speed up the reviewing process.
Keep waiting for me to review is wasting your time.
Bai: Although, we could consider the possibility of simplifying the process for packages that do not
require actually building [note: producing binaries] and the testing is not necessary.
Cth451: I think in which case, all the noarch packages should be considered to be in this category.
Mag Mell: Objection! A counter example is one of the RIME data packages, which is noarch but requires
Bai: I would exercise some caution here though. I think we should start from the pure data packages, where the building process is just copying files, like fonts and themes.
Bai: However, how do we handle the pull requests that needs simplified process? Using an exception list like before?
Liu: Add a new label could help as well.
Leo: Like "trivial pack"?
Bai: Even "rushed" would work, it's not important at the moment.
Leo: How do we signal that one pull request is ready to be merged?
Bai: Just don't use the emoji reaction. It's difficult to standardize. We can use labels.
Bai: Also, suggestions from Liu about using GitHub Actions to auto-label pull requests sounds promising
Leo: On the other subject, we need to fix our Installation Guide.
Bai: Right, also tarballs.
Zixing: Implement GitHub Actions to auto-label pull requests