At lunch today, a few of us discussed the idea of moving from two sheriffs
to four.
There are several reasons we contemplated such a change:
* The team is large enough that on the current schedule, you go months
between sheriffing, which is so long that you forget things like what tools
help you
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Ben Goodger b...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com
wrote:
* The team is large enough that on the current schedule, you go months
between sheriffing, which is so long that you forget things like what
tools
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Stuart Morgan stuartmor...@google.comwrote:
If we end up actually having four at a time that seems likely to be
worse than two: either four people are doing nothing but sheriffing,
which there is probably not enough work for, or all four people are
more
For a while now, I've advocated having 2 pacific timezone sheriffs always on
duty and having one or two in other time zones. I still advocate such an
idea.
So, to be clear, I think this is a good idea as long as the distribution of
sheriffs (time zone wise) is deliberate.
(I think this
(resending to chromium-dev)
Sheriffing the PST time zone is usually the worst. We could experiment with
tweaking the scheduling algorithm to have two PST sheriffs and one non-PST
sheriff per shift.
Other than that -- fixing flaky tests would go a long way to making the job
easier. Right now
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Finnur Thorarinsson fin...@google.comwrote:
If the sheriff load is too much for two people to devote 100% of their time
to, then there is something wrong with the process.
It's clearly too much, given that I hardly see any other sheriffs even
attempt to
Big +1 for at least a third sheriff.
With two sheriffs, if one is not in PST, then really we only have one
sheriff. If that sheriff happens to be new, then we have 0 =
num_sheriffs = 1.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
At lunch today, a few of us
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Stuart Morgan stuartmor...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com
wrote:
Sheriffs are in theory supposed to watch all the perf bots too. Do you?
I
don't. I doubt very many people do.
That's probably mostly a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Finnur Thorarinsson fin...@google.comwrote:
If the sheriff load is too much for two people to devote 100% of their
time to, then there is something wrong with the process.
It's
+1 (for what it's worth)
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.comwrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Finnur Thorarinsson
fin...@google.comwrote:
If the sheriff load is too much for two people
Having just come off sheriffing four days in the past two weeks ...
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
At lunch today, a few of us discussed the idea of moving from two sheriffs
to four.
There are several reasons we contemplated such a change:
* The
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
I think two sheriffs in US/Pacific during US/Pacific work hours is
plenty.
I was told at lunch that we already try to some degree to schedule PST with
non-PST people (although obvioulsy there are far more of the former),
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
I think two sheriffs in US/Pacific during US/Pacific work hours is
plenty.
I was told at lunch that we already try to some degree to schedule
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
The goal of the sheriff is to keep the tree open as long as possible
without carpeting over regressions. The sheriff should suffer through minor
flakiness without closing the tree (e.g. a couple flaky webkit tests should
not
Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
I don't think this is what sheriffs are supposed to do, although there is
clearly not consensus here. The goal of the sheriff is to keep the tree open
as long as possible without carpeting over regressions. The sheriff should
suffer through minor flakiness
Peter Kasting wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Stuart Morgan stuartmor...@google.com
wrote:
If we end up actually having four at a time that seems likely to be
worse than two: either four people are doing nothing but sheriffing,
which there is probably not enough work for, or all
16 matches
Mail list logo
