harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] aiming no regression
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:54:16 GMT

Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> 2006/12/18, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> > 2006/12/1, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> >> > 4) We have cruise controls running classlibrary tests on DRLVM. We
>> >> > need to decide what will we do when DRLVM+Classlib cruise control
>> >> > reports failure.
>> >>
>> >> Stop and fix the problem.  Is there really a question here?  I agree
>> >
>> > Yes, there is a question here. "Stop and fix" includes "discuss". But
>> > as we now know discussion may take several days. And while some people
>> > discuss what the problem is other people can't proceed with
>> > development and patch
>> > intagration.
>> >
>> > To have better pace and better CC up-time we need something else but 
>> not
>> > just "stop and fix". I suggest "revert and continue"
>> What's the difference, other than debating the semantics of "fix" and
>> "revert"?
>> We all agree - but I still don't think you're clearly stating the
>> problem.  I think that the core problem is that we don't immediately
>> react to CC failure.
>> Immediately reacting to CC failure should be the first order of the day
>> here.  Reacting to me is making the decision, quickly, about either
>> rolling back the change ("reverting") or doing something else.  The key
>> is being responsive.
>> It seems that what happens is that we wait, and then sets of changes
>> pile up, and I think that doing mass rollbacks at that point will solve
>> it, but make a mess.
>> The example of what I envision is when I broke the build in DRLVM,
>> Gregory told me immediately, and I fixed immediately - w/o a rollback.
>> All I'm saying is :
>> 1) We need to be far better with reaction time
> I would say we need to be far better with fixing/reverting time.
> If we reacted immediately and than discussed for two weeks -- we would not
> be better than where we are now

Yes, fixing/reverting is included. It's what I meant.

>> 2) We have intelligent people - we can be agile in this by making
>> decisions (quickly!) on a case by case basis what to do.
>> I'll also suggest that we ask each committer to check the CC event
>> stream before committing, so you don't commit into a bad state of things.
>> One of my problems is that I don't trust the CC stream, and don't
>> clearly see it because it's mixed in the other drek of the commits@ list.
> The problem is intermittent failures. I suggest that we exclude graphics 
> tests
> from CCs and probably have CC-specific exclude lists for networking tests
> (or fix all the known intermittent failures right now :)

good idea - works for me.

We need to drive into stability - we've made amazing progress in the 
last two months, and now we're down to the really, really hard stuff.  I 
  think that excluding them to get rock-solid CC reporting is step 0, 
and then step 1 is try and grind out the intermittent failures.


View raw message