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 15:50:02 GMT
Will the systems be reporting in to us?

geir

tatyana doubtsova wrote:
> I'm starting iterative classlib test runs under CC on win and linux
> (see http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2655).
> Hope, it'll make possible to update exclude lists with intermittently
> failing tests.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tanya
> 
> On 12/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message