On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 6:38 PM Tom Stellard <tstel...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/17/21 16:47, David Blaikie wrote: > > Sounds pretty good to me - wouldn't mind knowing more about/a good > summary of the effects of this on project/repo/etc notifications that > Mehdi's mentioning. (be good to have a write up of the expected > impact/options to then discuss - from the thread so far I understand some > general/high level concerns, but it's not clear to me exactly how it plays > out) > > > > The impact is really going to depend on the person and what notification > preferences they > have/want. If you are already watching the repo with the default > settings, then you probably > won't notice much of a difference given the current volume of > notifications. > I think I'm on the default settings - which does currently mean a notification for every issue update, which is a lot. Given that llvm-b...@email.llvm.org has been re-enabled, sending mail only on issue creation, I & others might opt back in to that behavior by disabling the baseline "notify on everything" to "notify only on issues I'm mentioned in". I guess currently the only email that github is generating is one email per issue update. We don't have any pull requests, so there aren't any emails for that, yeah? So this new strategy might add a few more back-and-forth on each cherrypick issue (for those using llvm-bugs & disabling general issue notifications, this will not be relevant to them - there won't be more issues created, just more comments on existing issues). But there will be some more emails generated related to the pull requests themselves, I guess? So each cherrypick goes from 2 emails to llvm-bugs (the issue creation and closure) to, how many? 4 (2 for llvm-bugs and I guess at least 2 for the pull request - one to make the request and one to close it - maybe a couple more status ones along the way?) > If people want to give their notification preferences, I can try to look > at how > this change will impact specific configurations. > @Mehdi AMINI <joker....@gmail.com> - are there particular scenarios you have in mind that'd be good to work through? > > -Tom > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 1:15 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Here is a proposal for a new automated workflow for managing parts > of the release > > process. I've been experimenting with this over the past few > releases and > > now that we have migrated to GitHub issues, it would be possible for > us to > > implement this in the main repo. > > > > The workflow is pretty straight forward, but it does use pull > requests. My > > idea is to enable pull requests for only this automated workflow and > not > > for general development (i.e. We would still use Phabricator for > code review). > > Let me know what you think about this: > > > > > > # Workflow > > > > * On an existing issue or a newly created issue, a user who wants to > backport > > one or more commits to the release branch adds a comment: > > > > /cherry-pick <commit_sha> <..> > > > > * This starts a GitHub Action job that attempts to cherry-pick the > commit(s) > > to the current release branch. > > > > * If the commit(s) can be cherry-picked cleanly, then the GitHub > Action: > > * Pushes the result of the cherry-pick to a branch in the > > llvmbot/llvm-project repo called issue<n>, where n is the > number of the > > GitHub Issue that launched the Action. > > > > * Adds this comment on the issue: /branch > llvmbot/llvm-project/issue<n> > > > > * Creates a pull request from llvmbot/llvm-project/issue<n> to > > llvm/llvm-project/release/XX.x > > > > * Adds a comment on the issue: /pull-request #<n> > > where n is the number of the pull request. > > > > * If the commit(s) can't be cherry-picked cleanly, then the GitHub > Action job adds > > the release:cherry-pick-failed label to the issue and adds a comment: > > "Failed to cherry-pick <commit_sha> <..>" along with a link to the > failing > > Action. > > > > * If a user has manually cherry-picked the fixes, resolved the > conflicts, and > > pushed the result to a branch on github, they can automatically > create a pull > > request by adding this comment to an issue: /branch > <user>/<repo>/<branch> > > > > * Once a pull request has been created, this launches more GitHub > Actions > > to run pre-commit tests. > > > > * Once the tests complete successfully and the changes have been > approved > > by the release manager, the pull request can me merged into the > release branch. > > > > * After the pull request is merged, a GitHub Action automatically > closes the > > associated issue. > > > > Some Examples: > > > > Cherry-pick success: > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/issues/729 > > Cherry-pick < > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/issues/729Cherry-pick> failure: > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/issues/730 < > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/issues/730> > > Manual Branch comment: > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/issues/710 < > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/issues/710> > > > > > > # Motivation > > > > Why do this? The goal is to make the release process more efficient > and transparent. > > With this new workflow, users can get automatic and immediate > feedback when a commit > > they want backported doesn't apply cleanly or introduces some test > failures. With > > the current process, these kinds of issues are communicated by the > release manager, > > and it can be days or even weeks before a problem is discovered and > communicated back > > to the users. > > > > Another advantage of this workflow is it introduces pre-commit CI to > the release branch, > > which is important for the stability of the branch and the releases, > but also gives > > the project an opportunity to experiment with new CI workflows in a > way that > > does not disrupt development on the main branch. > > > > # Implementation > > > > If this proposal is accepted, I would plan to implement this for the > LLVM 14 release cycle based > > on the following proof of concept that I have been testing for the > last few releases: > > > > > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/blob/release-automation/.github/workflows/release-workflow.yml > < > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/blob/release-automation/.github/workflows/release-workflow.yml > > > > > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/blob/release-automation/.github/workflows/release-workflow-create-pr.yml > < > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/blob/release-automation/.github/workflows/release-workflow-create-pr.yml > > > > > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/blob/release-automation/.github/workflows/release-merge-pr.yml > < > https://github.com/tstellar/llvm-project/blob/release-automation/.github/workflows/release-merge-pr.yml > > > > > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev < > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
