GNU bug report logs - #73515
Request for merging "qt-team" branch

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 73515 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 73515 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Z572 <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn>
To: <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Request for merging "qt-team" branch
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:43:10 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi! qt-team have this following updates:
- qt5 5.15.10 -> 5.15.15
- qt6 6.6.3 -> 6.7.2
- libvpx 1.12.0 -> 1.14.1
- abseil-cpp 20230802.1 -> 20240722.0
- add re2-next, icu4c-75, python-setuptools-scm-next
- qtconnectivity rename to qtconnectivity-5 and add qtconnectivity qt6
- qtcharts rename to qtcharts-5 and add qtcharts qt6

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
To: 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Ready to merge qt-team branch?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:01:34 +0000

Hi Z572,

You're next in the merge queue according to the list [0], are you ready to merge?

Looks like a rebase is needed as QA is saying it can't process it:

https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/qt-team

I'm assuming this is partially why CI's substitutes available is so bad.

Steve / Futurile

[0] https://qa.guix.gnu.org/

Message #11 received at 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
Cc: 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#73515] Ready to merge qt-team branch?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:33:24 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net> writes:

> You're next in the merge queue according to the list [0], are you ready to merge?
>
> Looks like a rebase is needed as QA is saying it can't process it:
>
> https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/qt-team

The QA data service has processed the tip of qt-team, that's how it's
able to provide substitute information.

Also, looks like it's based on 3dc63f8ca7af8d4fee32a03c206b571896a3a70a
which is a few days old, so I'm guessing it was rebased a couple of days
ago.

The qa-frontpage has just finished canceling all the old builds that I
guess were submitted prior to the rebase, so hopefully some builds will
start happening soon.

> I'm assuming this is partially why CI's substitutes available is so bad.

I think CI has substitute availability comparable with master, which
seems good to me at least regarding the merge of qt-team, it's bordeaux
which is further behind.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#73515] Ready to merge qt-team branch?
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:07:16 +0000

On 11 Nov, Christopher Baines wrote:
> Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net> writes:
(...) 
> The QA data service has processed the tip of qt-team, that's how it's
> able to provide substitute information.
> 
> Also, looks like it's based on 3dc63f8ca7af8d4fee32a03c206b571896a3a70a
> which is a few days old, so I'm guessing it was rebased a couple of days
> ago.
> 
> The qa-frontpage has just finished canceling all the old builds that I
> guess were submitted prior to the rebase, so hopefully some builds will
> start happening soon.
> 
> > I'm assuming this is partially why CI's substitutes available is so bad.
> 
> I think CI has substitute availability comparable with master, which
> seems good to me at least regarding the merge of qt-team, it's bordeaux
> which is further behind.

Ah! thanks for the explanation Chris.

What's a reasonable level to wait for before a branch is merged? Master is at 96% on CI, and 92% on bordeaux right, so should we wait for the QT branch to get to the same point? And, is there a rule of thumb for the other architectures?

Steve

Message #17 received at 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Z572 <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn>
To: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
Cc: 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#73515] Ready to merge qt-team branch?
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:28:50 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net> writes:

> Hi Z572,
>
> You're next in the merge queue according to the list [0], are you ready to merge?
>
> Looks like a rebase is needed as QA is saying it can't process it:
>
> https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/qt-team
>
> I'm assuming this is partially why CI's substitutes available is so bad.

The other day I rebase to the latest commit, but qa doesn't seem to have
handled Merge base yet. and ci.guix's qt-team seems to work very slowly,
the submitted package will take a long time to start.

>
> Steve / Futurile
>
> [0] https://qa.guix.gnu.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Z572 <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn>
Cc: 73515 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
Subject: Re: bug#73515: Request for merging "qt-team" branch
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:37:13 +0100

Hi,

Z572 <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn> skribis:

> The other day I rebase to the latest commit, but qa doesn't seem to have
> handled Merge base yet. and ci.guix's qt-team seems to work very slowly,
> the submitted package will take a long time to start.

<https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/qt-team> is at 75% across all
architectures; for reference, ‘master’ is at 78% (meaning that x86 is
above 90% and aarch64 is very low).

I would say it’s enough to make an informed decision as to whether to
merge.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #25 received at 73515-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Zheng Junjie <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, 73515-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#73515] Request for merging "qt-team" branch
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 23:40:18 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Z572 <zhengjunjie <at> iscas.ac.cn> skribis:
>
>> The other day I rebase to the latest commit, but qa doesn't seem to have
>> handled Merge base yet. and ci.guix's qt-team seems to work very slowly,
>> the submitted package will take a long time to start.
>
> <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/qt-team> is at 75% across all
> architectures; for reference, ‘master’ is at 78% (meaning that x86 is
> above 90% and aarch64 is very low).
>
> I would say it’s enough to make an informed decision as to whether to
> merge.

Yes, the other day I was waiting for bordeaux to build qt-team's aarch64 architecture.

Now I have pushed qt-team to master

Closed this issue.

>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.