On a related note, Frank (cc'd) ran into an issue where the mac try bots have a less-strict compiler warning error than the build bots, which led to a broken build once he checked in: http://codereview.chromium.org/155834
Probably a simple config tweak somewhere, but interesting nonetheless. Andrew On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Paweł Hajdan Jr. <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> One thing that would help us keep the tree more green is avoiding compile >> failures. A compile failure is very bad, because without binaries the tests >> can't run, and then we have to wait for all of them to run, which may reveal >> additional failures etc. >> I'm actually surprised by some failures on buildbot, but at least one >> thing was not surprising for me: Windows Release compile failures when the >> Debug compiles fine (because we don't have Release trybot). >> > > How often does something run in Windows when compiled with the release > configuration but not the debug? I've definitely seen it, but I'm not sure > it's terribly common. My guess is that there are other causes of the build > breaking that should be addressed first. Are there any stats on this? > > My gut feeling is that many of the build breaks are for things that never > passed on a try bot. For example, WebKit gardening patches almost never > work on the try bots so we just ignore them. I think working on stuff like > this will bear more fruit. > > Not to mention that each bot costs a lot in terms of the machine, > power, maintenance time, etc. > > >> What do you think? Do you have any ideas how we could avoid more compile >> failures, even if they are not possible to apply now due to lack of >> resources? (for example adding trybots, which seems to not happen soon). >> >> I was also thinking about allowing simple check-ins when the tree is >> "waiting for cycle" state (when the sheriff wants to verify that bots cycle >> green after a lot of redness). The status would say ("Tree closed, waiting >> for cycle; ask sheriff to commit a simple change"), or maybe some >> abbreviation for that. It would help people getting code in, and the sheriff >> could require really a lot from that change (like full green trybot pass >> etc). What do you think about that (especially sheriffs)? >> > > I think you can always ask the sheriffs if you can put something small in. > I don't see the point of making any such message policy or a convention. > That said, unless it doesn't compile or is REALLY obviously OK, I don't > think it's a good idea. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
