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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11995 > unrolled thread

Severity bump script

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-11 07:50 +0100
    Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-11 16:50 +0100
    Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-15 01:20 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2019-11-15 19:50 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-16 04:10 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-22 09:40 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-22 22:30 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-27 20:40 +0100
            Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-28 04:20 +0100
              Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-28 13:40 +0100
                Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-28 19:10 +0100
                  Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-28 21:00 +0100
    Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-01 22:50 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 20:30 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 20:40 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 22:20 +0100
            Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 22:30 +0100
              Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 22:50 +0100
              Re: Severity bump script Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 23:40 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-12-03 10:40 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-12-02 21:00 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-12-03 13:30 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-05 12:10 +0100
            Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-08 21:00 +0100
              Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-14 21:00 +0100
                Re: Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-18 07:10 +0100
                  Re: Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2019-12-22 12:00 +0100
                    Re: Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2020-01-07 00:20 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#11995 — Severity bump script

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

Hi Sandro,

---------- Forwarded message ---------
> We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in
several steps.  In the
> first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> all leaf module packages and low popcon (< 300) application packages.
> Bugs marked with the "py2keep" user tag will not have their severity
> raised.

is there any progress with script from your site please? First we need list
to check. Thanks a lot.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12002

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandro,
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in several steps.  In the
> > first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> > all leaf module packages and low popcon (< 300) application packages.
> > Bugs marked with the "py2keep" user tag will not have their severity
> > raised.
>
> is there any progress with script from your site please? First we need list to check. Thanks a lot.

no progress on this yet.

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12012

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandro,
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in several steps.  In the
> > first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> > all leaf module packages and low popcon (< 300) application packages.
> > Bugs marked with the "py2keep" user tag will not have their severity
> > raised.
>
> is there any progress with script from your site please? First we need list to check. Thanks a lot.

where is the first draft:
http://sandrotosi.me/debian/py2removal/would_raise_to_rc.txt (it will
be updated every time the script runs)

there are 703 unique severity bumps roughly half of the pending bugs.
please note there are duplicates in the list as data is per binary
package, while bugs are on a source package basis.

you can read the heuristic to determine if it's a module
(https://github.com/sandrotosi/debian-tools/blob/master/py2rm_progress.py#L472)
or and app (https://github.com/sandrotosi/debian-tools/blob/master/py2rm_progress.py#L475)
in the links, they are pretty weak, is there a better way?

all in all i think this is not the effect people were expecting: there
are too many packages that would become RC-buggy; also the severity
bump is done at the source package level, even if only a single binary
in the pkg set matches the criteria (which, if you read the request
above, it is what's wanted).

Let me know what you think,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12013

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

Hi Sandro!

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 07:13:49PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> where is the first draft:
> http://sandrotosi.me/debian/py2removal/would_raise_to_rc.txt (it will
> be updated every time the script runs)
>
> there are 703 unique severity bumps roughly half of the pending bugs.
> please note there are duplicates in the list as data is per binary
> package, while bugs are on a source package basis.
>
> you can read the heuristic to determine if it's a module
> (https://github.com/sandrotosi/debian-tools/blob/master/py2rm_progress.py#L472)
> or and app (https://github.com/sandrotosi/debian-tools/blob/master/py2rm_progress.py#L475)
> in the links, they are pretty weak, is there a better way?

I see that the script considers some -doc packages as modules.

I can’t tell if we should remove them, but maybe the description could
be updated? Like “python-foo-doc is a documentation package has 0 external
rdeps”.

Also, in other lines I would also change “have” to “has”.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

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

#12014

> I see that the script considers some -doc packages as modules.

good point; fixed, but that only brings down the unique severity bumps to 688

> I can’t tell if we should remove them, but maybe the description could
> be updated? Like “python-foo-doc is a documentation package has 0 external
> rdeps”.

naah we shouldnt remote them

> Also, in other lines I would also change “have” to “has”.

fixed that too

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12035

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

Hi Sandro,

thanks for first version. I randomly checked few lines and found this:

# libufo0 is an application and has low popcon (25 < 300)
severity 938743 serious
# libufo-bin is an application and has low popcon (4 < 300)
severity 938743 serious
# libufo-dev is an application and has low popcon (5 < 300)
severity 938743 serious
# python-ufw is a module and has 0 external rdeps

But in bug:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=938743

is

Fix blocked by 938744: ufo-filters: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

So because 938743 is blocked by 938744, we should not raise severity
of 938743, right?

Thanks.

--
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

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

#12036

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:23 AM Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandro,
>
> thanks for first version. I randomly checked few lines and found this:
>
> # libufo0 is an application and has low popcon (25 < 300)
> severity 938743 serious
> # libufo-bin is an application and has low popcon (4 < 300)
> severity 938743 serious
> # libufo-dev is an application and has low popcon (5 < 300)
> severity 938743 serious
> # python-ufw is a module and has 0 external rdeps
>
> But in bug:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=938743
>
> is
>
> Fix blocked by 938744: ufo-filters: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye
>
> So because 938743 is blocked by 938744, we should not raise severity of 938743, right?

i've removed bugs that are marked as blocked by; we're now down to 487
unique severity raies

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12049

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

Hi,

pá 22. 11. 2019 v 22:22 odesílatel Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> napsal:

> I've removed bugs that are marked as blocked by; we're now down to 487
> unique severity raies
>

cool. Checked and imho it works fine now. So I guess we can run it.

Thanks.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

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

#12050

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 2:16 PM Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> pá 22. 11. 2019 v 22:22 odesílatel Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> napsal:
>>
>> I've removed bugs that are marked as blocked by; we're now down to 487
>> unique severity raies
>
>
> cool. Checked and imho it works fine now. So I guess we can run it.

i'm not sure we can: in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00096.html you say
"We need to prepare draft of RC-bumper email", is this draft ready?
how do we wanna use it: should we email each bug individually or just
add the description to the header (as comment) of a mail to control@?

it's probably not a good idea to mail each bug individually as it will
produce a lot of emails (at least in the first batch) that will result
in my laptop being blacklisted by bugs.d.o MTA.

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12051

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

Hi,

čt 28. 11. 2019 v 4:12 odesílatel Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> napsal:

> i'm not sure we can: in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00096.html you say
> "We need to prepare draft of RC-bumper email", is this draft ready?
>

ah, you are right.


> add the description to the header (as comment) of a mail to control@?
>

this is only way to go imho.

I think we should use something simple/short like this:

--cut--
Raising severity of Python 2 removal bugs, for details see:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/11/msg00000.html
--cut--

Thanks Sandro for working on this.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

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

#12060

> I think we should use something simple/short like this:
>
> --cut--
> Raising severity of Python 2 removal bugs, for details see: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/11/msg00000.html
> --cut--

this is live now, with the following header:

# Part of the effort for the removal of python from bullseye
#  * https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal
#  * http://sandrotosi.me/debian/py2removal/index.html
# See https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/11/msg00000.html
# for more details on this severity bump

# python-apns-client is a module and has 0 external rdeps
severity 935212 serious
.....


-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12062

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

Hi,

čt 28. 11. 2019 v 19:07 odesílatel Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> napsal:

> this is live now, with the following header:
>

 cool, thanks again!

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

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

#12084

Paul, this is the thread i was talking about.

you were copied in the original email:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00098.html

if there is something the RT wants to discuss about this effort,
please do so here, not directly to me (i may be the mail address
sending those control commands, but the decision was taken here).

Thanks,
Sandro

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandro,
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in several steps.  In the
> > first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> > all leaf module packages and low popcon (< 300) application packages.
> > Bugs marked with the "py2keep" user tag will not have their severity
> > raised.
>
> is there any progress with script from your site please? First we need list to check. Thanks a lot.
>
> --
> Best regards
>  Ondřej Nový
>


-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12087

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

Hi all,

On 01-12-2019 22:45, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Paul, this is the thread i was talking about.
> 
> you were copied in the original email:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00098.html
> 
> if there is something the RT wants to discuss about this effort,
> please do so here, not directly to me (i may be the mail address
> sending those control commands, but the decision was taken here).

I understand the drive to push for Python 2 removal and sympathize with
it. The issue I had yesterday with the process is that "leaf" was
wrongly defined, it was looking at Depends, instead of also including
Build-Depends.

I don't want to stand in the way of Python 2 removal, but as I said
before, pulling packages out from underneath maintainers isn't pretty so
needs to be done with proper notifications and care. An RC bug to ones
own package is acceptable in my opinion as it is a clear discussion
forum, and can be (temporarily) down-graded while the discussion is
ongoing. Being notified about some other package that I not even need
directly but is going to pull "my" package out of testing isn't a nice
experience and should be avoided. Yes, that slows down the process, but
there are people, emotions and all those irrational things involved.

Paul

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

#12088

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

Hi Ondrej,

On 02-12-2019 20:33, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> po 2. 12. 2019 v 20:28 odesílatel Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org
> <mailto:elbrus@debian.org>> napsal:
> 
>     I understand the drive to push for Python 2 removal and sympathize with
>     it. The issue I had yesterday with the process is that "leaf" was
>     wrongly defined, it was looking at Depends, instead of also including
>     Build-Depends.
> 
> 
> huh? We are not bumping any "blocked" bugs.
> Depends/Build-Depends/Recommends/autopkgtests usage marks bug as
> blocked. Any example of "wrong definition" please?

#942999 and #936537

Paul

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

#12090

> > huh? We are not bumping any "blocked" bugs.
> > Depends/Build-Depends/Recommends/autopkgtests usage marks bug as
> > blocked. Any example of "wrong definition" please?
>
> #942999 and #936537

the blocks are only between py2removal packages, so if a package
un-related to the py2removal effort
depend/recomments/b-deps/autotest-triggers a py2removal *application*, that
is still considered a leaf package and will get its severity
raised (cfr https://github.com/sandrotosi/debian-tools/blob/master/py2rm_progress.py#L544-L546
); it doesnt happen with modules are we check the "real" rdeps for
those


--
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12091

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

Hi,

On 02-12-2019 22:15, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> the blocks are only between py2removal packages, so if a package
> un-related to the py2removal effort
> depend/recomments/b-deps/autotest-triggers a py2removal *application*, that
> is still considered a leaf package

You'll fix that, right? Because why would the tree stop at Python? A
leaf package is a package without Depends/Build-Depends in Debian. (I
appreciate it very much that you consider Recommends and
autopkgtest-triggers as well).

Paul

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

#12092

> You'll fix that, right? Because why would the tree stop at Python? A
> leaf package is a package without Depends/Build-Depends in Debian. (I
> appreciate it very much that you consider Recommends and
> autopkgtest-triggers as well).

so the revised logic should be:

* it's an app (package name doesnt start with 'python-' or end with -'doc')
* it has low popcorn (< 300)
* (NEW) it has "real" rdep = 0 (so the number of dependencies from
packages not from the same source pkg are 0)

is that correct or should it be something else?


-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

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

#12093

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

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 10:25 pm Paul Gevers, <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02-12-2019 22:15, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > the blocks are only between py2removal packages, so if a package
> > un-related to the py2removal effort
> > depend/recomments/b-deps/autotest-triggers a py2removal *application*,
> that
> > is still considered a leaf package
>
> You'll fix that, right? Because why would the tree stop at Python? A
> leaf package is a package without Depends/Build-Depends in Debian.


Because the python2 removal is about python2.  If you depend on a python2
package then the dependant application needs to likewise be dropped or
updated, but it also is at the same time somewhat out of scope from "us".

So it's either file py2removal bugs also against packages that don't depend
on python, but just use an application that happens to use python2, or the
current status quo.
That's my take at least.

Also, I am one of those that think we should be much more forceful, and the
current situation looks just fine for me, so I might be biased.

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

#12095

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

Hi,

po 2. 12. 2019 v 20:36 odesílatel Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> napsal:

> #942999 and #936537
>

ah right. I think this is correct. There is nothing else "in Python 2
removal process" to do on "someone else" packages. Work needs to be done in
these packages so raise severity here to unblock other bugs and continue
Python 2 removing effort.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web