Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #10743 > unrolled thread

Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18 Nicolas Dandrimont <olasd@debian.org> - 2018-08-02 17:30 +0200
    git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-03 05:30 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 06:00 +0200
        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-03 06:40 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 08:30 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 09:10 +0200
              Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 10:20 +0200
                Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 10:30 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 15:40 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ruben Undheim <lists@beebeetle.com> - 2018-08-04 09:40 +0200
        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 09:20 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2018-08-08 13:40 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 16:50 +0200
              Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2018-08-08 21:30 +0200
                Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 10:20 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-09 11:00 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 12:20 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 13:00 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 23:50 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ruben Undheim <lists@beebeetle.com> - 2018-08-08 16:00 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 17:00 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 00:00 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-08 16:30 +0200
        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-10 22:30 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-11 16:20 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] eamanu15 <emmanuelarias30@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 15:30 +0200
              Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2018-08-12 20:30 +0200
                Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] eamanu15 <emmanuelarias30@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:10 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-15 03:20 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Lars Kruse <lists@sumpfralle.de> - 2018-08-15 04:20 +0200
                    Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-15 09:10 +0200
                      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org> - 2018-08-15 13:00 +0200
                        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-15 13:20 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-11 16:20 +0200
    Re: Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18 Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2018-09-19 15:40 +0200
      Re: Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18 Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-09-19 17:40 +0200
      Upstreams dropping Python 2 support (Was: Re: Report from the Python  BoF @ DebConf18) Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 12:00 +0200
        Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 12:20 +0200
          Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 13:30 +0200
          Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 15:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#10743 — Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hey folks,

Today, we've had a productive BoF session at DebConf18, with around 12 people
in attendance (unfortunately, this was not held in a recorded room).

Here are the raw notes: https://gobby.debian.org/export/debconf18/bof/python

There are two team-wide items that would be of general interest:

1/ We agreed that we would like Python 3.7 as default Python3 in Buster. As this
needs a lot of work still, we set ourselves an internal deadline of October
2018 to assess whether releasing with 3.7 as default is feasible, leaving us
2.5 months to do any followup transitions that would be needed before the start
of the transition freeze.

Matthias will talk to the Release Team with this plan to "pre-book" a
transition slot and make sure this would fit within their freeze plans

Of course, in the meantime, we need to keep pushingupstreams to fix the async
and generator-related issues that arise in 3.7. This also means finding
solutions for edge-cases such as astroid, whose 2.0 branch is the only to
support Py3.7, but also drops 2.x support. We may have to consider removing
some leaf packages as well.

2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary, as
well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from salsa.

3/ Finally, there was some conversation about looking into debhelper's
automatic detection of documentation packages (dh_installdocs in compat 11,
policy §12.3 / 3.9.7), to actualy move documentation to the python-$foo-doc
package if it exists. Stuart has taken this action item.

Cheers,
-- 
Nicolas Dandrimont

BOFH excuse #149:
Dew on the telephone lines.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10746 — git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi guys,

čt 2. 8. 2018 v 23:25 odesílatel Nicolas Dandrimont <olasd@debian.org>
napsal:

> 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
> Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
> as
> well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from
> salsa.
>

I would like to do this in two phases:
1. convert git-dpm -> gbp
2. change default branch to debian/master

First phase is ready, see:
https://github.com/onovy/onovy-mass/blob/master/checks/git-dpm2gbp
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/pytest/commit/af7cb5768e13b2be427774afe450c456cf96d0b4

Any suggestions for phase one please?

Second phase is a bit harder, because everybody needs to change local
checked-out branch manually or do clean "gbp clone". If someone forgot to
do this and do push, we will get two distinct branches at salsa (master +
debian/master). I think we need to coordinate this a bit more.

Thanks.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10747 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 2018-08-03 11:06, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> 2. change default branch to debian/master

How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream
releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for
following upstream master, typically for experimental)?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10748 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On August 3, 2018 3:51:00 AM UTC, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> wrote:
>On 2018-08-03 11:06, Ondrej Novy wrote:
>> 2. change default branch to debian/master
>
>How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream
>releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for
>following upstream master, typically for experimental)?

I think we should just follow DEP-14 branch naming conventions (which, having re-read it, I discover I haven't been doing).

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10749 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 2018-08-03 04:33, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On August 3, 2018 3:51:00 AM UTC, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> wrote:
> >How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream
> >releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for
> >following upstream master, typically for experimental)?
>
> I think we should just follow DEP-14 branch naming conventions (which, having re-read it, I discover I haven't been doing).

In fact, I thought that "upstream/master" were DEP-14-ish, but
only "upstream/latest" (for the newest release) is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10750 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On Fri, 03 Aug 2018 at 08:21:28 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> In fact, I thought that "upstream/master" were DEP-14-ish, but
> only "upstream/latest" (for the newest release) is.

Yes. The simple case for DEP-14 is that you are only following one
upstream branch, which is upstream/latest; the more complex case
is that you are also following an upstream stable-branch or something,
for which naming like upstream/1.2.x is suggested for the older (stable)
branch.

dbus <https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/dbus/branches> and glib2.0
<https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/glib/branches> are examples
of DEP-14 packages that track more than one upstream branch.

There is no upstream/master, upstream/unstable, upstream/stretch or
similar in DEP-14, because:

* if uploads to a particular Debian suite are tracking upstream versions
  older than the latest, they presumably meet some sort of criteria
  for which versions are acceptable, most commonly "is from the same
  stable-branch as the previous release"; the branch is named after
  those criteria rather than the target suite, because multiple suites
  might be sharing an upstream release series

* if there is no upstream version that is acceptable for e.g. stable,
  then new upstream versions won't get imported for that suite, so
  there's no need to maintain a branch that they could be imported into
  (if using pristine-tar, it uses commits, not branches, to check out
  upstream source)

    smcv

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10751 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 2018-08-03 08:04, Simon McVittie wrote:
> There is no upstream/master, upstream/unstable, upstream/stretch or
> similar in DEP-14, because:

I did not suggest mingling upstream branches with Debian
versions, which seems to be your impression. I just (maybe
wrongly) thought, that upstream/master whatever upstream does in
their master/tip/trunk (just as upstream/latest always follows
the latest upstream release). I don't remember, where I got that
idea from. Unreliable sources :~)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10752 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 2018-08-03 10:08, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2018-08-03 08:04, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > There is no upstream/master, upstream/unstable, upstream/stretch or
> > similar in DEP-14, because:
> 
> I did not suggest mingling upstream branches with Debian
> versions, which seems to be your impression. I just (maybe
> wrongly) thought, that upstream/master whatever upstream does in
                                        ^ follows
> their master/tip/trunk (just as upstream/latest always follows
> the latest upstream release). I don't remember, where I got that
> idea from. Unreliable sources :~)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10753 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp

thanks for doing this!

> 2. change default branch to debian/master

please dont. a quick check to the perl team and it seems they dont
require it, so should we? if someone wants to follow DEP-14 then just
do so and document it on debian/README.source (and repoint HEAD),
leaving many of the (very!) simple packages away from an unnecessary
complication?

thanks,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10760 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

Hi,

> > 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
> > Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
> > as
> > well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from
> > salsa.

Good initiative! The last upload of git-dpm was in 2014.

But have anyone here tried the new tool git-debrebase (by Ian)?  Should it be
evaluated before doing a mass change for Python packages? It integrates even
better with dgit (of course..)

I am trying it out these days. I have had a few problems when setting it up for
the first time for some packages, but when it first has been setup, it works
very well indeed (so far)! I have reported one bug for initial setup and it
sounds like they want to fix.

Conversion from gbp to git-debrebase can be done with one built-in
git-debrebase command, so maybe not bad in any case to go ahead with the
git-dpm -> gbp transition.


Best regards,
Ruben

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10769 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 08/04/2018 09:05 AM, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
>>> Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
>>> as
>>> well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from
>>> salsa.
> 
> Good initiative! The last upload of git-dpm was in 2014.
> 
> But have anyone here tried the new tool git-debrebase (by Ian)?  Should it be
> evaluated before doing a mass change for Python packages? It integrates even
> better with dgit (of course..)

The problem with git-debrebase will be the same as with git-dpm. As soon
as you try to upgrade / merge a new upstream release, you dive into a
rebase/conflict nightmare.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10770 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On Aug 08 2018, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 09:05 AM, Ruben Undheim wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>>> 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
>>>> Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
>>>> as
>>>> well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from
>>>> salsa.
>> 
>> Good initiative! The last upload of git-dpm was in 2014.
>> 
>> But have anyone here tried the new tool git-debrebase (by Ian)?  Should it be
>> evaluated before doing a mass change for Python packages? It integrates even
>> better with dgit (of course..)
>
> The problem with git-debrebase will be the same as with git-dpm. As soon
> as you try to upgrade / merge a new upstream release, you dive into a
> rebase/conflict nightmare.

That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
principally not be any harder than with gbp.

The problems with git-dpm are the implementation and lack of
maintenance, not the way the Debian changes are managed. 


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10773 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 08/08/2018 01:38 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
> patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
> principally not be any harder than with gbp.

It is a nightmare when patches are conflicting.

> The problems with git-dpm are the implementation and lack of
> maintenance, not the way the Debian changes are managed. 

I don't agree.

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10775 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On Aug 08 2018, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 01:38 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
>> patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
>> principally not be any harder than with gbp.
>
> It is a nightmare when patches are conflicting.

Could you give an example where this is handled differently by git-dpm
than by gbp? As I said, the problem is exactly the same.


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10778 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 08/08/2018 09:19 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Aug 08 2018, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 01:38 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
>>> patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
>>> principally not be any harder than with gbp.
>>
>> It is a nightmare when patches are conflicting.
> 
> Could you give an example where this is handled differently by git-dpm
> than by gbp? As I said, the problem is exactly the same.

Here's a few cases where it gets nasty.

Let's say a patch has been applied upstream. In such case, I just do a
few "quilt push" to check, then I see one is already applied (by running
"patch --dry-run -P1 <debian/patches/foo.patch"), then I just remove the
patch from the series file, and I'm done. In case of using git with the
rebase thing, then I get into useless trouble.

Another case is if upstream moved sources from one directory to another.
In such case, I just edit the patch directly to fix the path. With a git
rebase, you'd probably have to rewrite all the patch by hand. Here
again, that's useless trouble.

Now, if all goes well, and if the above cases are fixed, them I'm fine
using "gbp pq", but it's not any better than fixing by hand using quilt.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10779 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

čt 9. 8. 2018 v 10:16 odesílatel Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> napsal:

> Let's say a patch has been applied upstream. In such case, I just do a
> few "quilt push" to check, then I see one is already applied (by running
> "patch --dry-run -P1 <debian/patches/foo.patch"), then I just remove the
> patch from the series file, and I'm done. In case of using git with the
> rebase thing, then I get into useless trouble.
>

if patch is already applied upstream, git-dpm/git autoremove that patch.
What "trouble"?

Another case is if upstream moved sources from one directory to another.
> In such case, I just edit the patch directly to fix the path. With a git
> rebase, you'd probably have to rewrite all the patch by hand. Here
> again, that's useless trouble.
>

ugly (really).


> Now, if all goes well, and if the above cases are fixed, them I'm fine
> using "gbp pq", but it's not any better than fixing by hand using quilt.
>

it's much better :)

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10780 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 at 10:16:31 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Now, if all goes well, and if the above cases are fixed, them I'm fine
> using "gbp pq", but it's not any better than fixing by hand using quilt.

One advantage of both quilt and gbp-pq over git-dpm (and probably
git-debrebase) is that they interoperate: quilt and gbp-pq both work
well in a "patches-unapplied" git repository. If one team member (for
instance me) prefers to use gbp-pq, and another team member (for instance
Thomas) prefers to use plain quilt, then we can share one git repository
without significant problems: the worst that normally happens is a bit
of unnecessary diffstat for the lines matching /^(git )?diff/, /^Index:/,
etc. if one of us re-exports the whole patch series.

I personally think gbp-pq is a better tool than quilt because it lets us
use 'git rebase' on the patch series, but part of the point of choosing
the gbp-pq-compatible repository layout is that it isn't either/or:
we can use both.

    smcv

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10781 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> Let's say a patch has been applied upstream. In such case, I just do a
> few "quilt push" to check, then I see one is already applied (by running
> "patch --dry-run -P1 <debian/patches/foo.patch"), then I just remove the
> patch from the series file, and I'm done. In case of using git with the
> rebase thing, then I get into useless trouble.

This case is easy. When rebase comes up with a conflict, you can tell it
to skip/drop that entire change.

This tends to be my default choice when I don't understand why something
conflicts during such a rebase.

> Another case is if upstream moved sources from one directory to another.
> In such case, I just edit the patch directly to fix the path. With a git
> rebase, you'd probably have to rewrite all the patch by hand. Here
> again, that's useless trouble.

Yes, that case is harder to deal with.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10776 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> writes:

> The problems with git-dpm are the implementation and lack of
> maintenance, not the way the Debian changes are managed. 

git-dpm requires that you always use its tools. If another maintainer
got confused and used another toolset to upgrade the upstream version,
things could get messy.

I did see it happen from time to time that the previous maintainer would
leave the repository in a weird state that could only be fixed
(unfortunately) with a git rebase.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10771 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

Hi,

> The problem with git-debrebase will be the same as with git-dpm. As soon
> as you try to upgrade / merge a new upstream release, you dive into a
> rebase/conflict nightmare.

So in other words, you prefer to solve the same conflicts manually with
quilt/quilt refresh or get similar but worse (I think) rebase conflicts with
"gbp pq rebase"?

There is no nightmare unless there are patch conflicts. All the tools will
in that case give you a nightmare in one way or the other. It is just that some
of them attempt to handle it a bit more elegantly than the others. For people
familar with git (and rebase) - the nightmare should not be bad at all with
git-debrebase.  (personally I solve conflicts  with quilt -f /quilt refresh
when using gbp)..

Cheers,
Ruben

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web