On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Drew Wilson atwil...@chromium.org wrote:
Do the trybots build the release version? Because I had a build break last
week that passed the 3 basic trybots, but failed to compile on the release
buildbots because of a missing include which was apparently pulled in
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.orgwrote:
But this means that the person didn't use the trybot.
I think we need to be harsher on people who commit with changes that
didn't complete or
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Nicolas Sylvain nsylv...@chromium.orgwrote:
I don't think anyone suggested immediate auto revert.
Ben Goodger: I am supportive of auto-revert as long as we apply it
universally
Kenneth Russell: I completely support immediate backouts of changes that
break the
Meant to hit reply-all
I want to caveat this on having less flakiness. ;-) See my comments on IRC
about some tests randomly making a mess of themselves then going green
again.
-Ben
I'll also add this could be done automatically based on the set of tests we
define as not flaky.
I always feel
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Nicolas Sylvain nsylv...@chromium.orgwrote:
I don't think anyone suggested immediate auto revert.
Ben Goodger: I am supportive of auto-revert as long as we apply it
universally
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
I don't see who this benefits - assuming that a given patch is broken and
needs a small delta to be correct, it's just as easy to submit a patch with
a small delta as it is to submit the small delta. Leaving the broken
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:08 PM, James Robinson jam...@google.com wrote:
I don't see who this benefits - assuming that a given patch is broken and
needs a small delta to be correct, it's just as easy to submit a patch
it seems that the time limit should depend on the type of bustage
break winxp compile --- you get 2 minutes
break linux views compile --- you get 30 minutes
-- Evan Stade
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Nicolas Sylvain nsylv...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Peter
But this means that the person didn't use the trybot.
I think we need to be harsher on people who commit with changes that didn't
complete or failed on the trybot. They need to have a really good reason as
to why they want to try their change on the buildbot and possibly delay many
other
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) b...@chromium.orgwrote:
I am supportive of auto-revert as long as we apply it universally. So many
times the tree has been busted forever because of a vacuum of action by the
sheriff.
Also FYI - the trybots never work for me on my home
The most common case of 5 minute bustage fix is file was omitted
from changelist.
-Ben
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
To be clear, here's the proposed policy: Any change that would
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org wrote:
But this means that the person didn't use the trybot.
I think we need to be harsher on people who commit with changes that didn't
complete or failed on the trybot. They need to have a really good reason as
to why they
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
If a change closes the tree, the change author has 1 or 2 minutes to respond
to a ping. The change should be reverted if the author doesn't respond, if
he says to revert, or if he does not say he has a fix within the
IMO, I wouldn't mind draconian reverts in the interest of keeping the
tree open and allowing the sheriffs some semblance of productivity.
OTOH, git makes it really easy for me to un-revert and try again, so
maybe I'm biased there.
- a
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Eric Seidel
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Kenneth Russell k...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John Abd-El-Malek j...@chromium.org
wrote:
But this means that the person didn't use the trybot.
I think we need to be harsher on people who commit with changes that
didn't
complete
I'm OK with that.
Just make it clear that the sheriff does have authority. One time when I was
sheriff I wanted to revert a broken patch. The author insisted on patching
it over and over. He finally got it working about about seven patches and
nearly three hours or so, when I was insisting on
+100.
This is very similar to getting paged about a production problem.
Sometimes you get sucked into wasting an hour on easy fixes which
don't fix anything. That sets you up for stupid mistakes.
So, you broke the build. Take it like a man/woman, revert your
change, and land it again when
Do the trybots build the release version? Because I had a build break last
week that passed the 3 basic trybots, but failed to compile on the release
buildbots because of a missing include which was apparently pulled in
through other means in the debug version.
-atw
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:30
18 matches
Mail list logo
