On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would push back slightly. The reason we have the PR builds taking so > long is death by a million small things that we add. Doing a full 2.11 > compile is order minutes... it's a nontrivial increase to the build times. > We can host the build if there's a way to post back a comment when the build is broken. > > It doesn't seem that bad to me to go back post-hoc once in a while and fix > 2.11 bugs when they come up. It's on the order of once or twice per release > and the typesafe guys keep a close eye on it (thanks!). Compare that to > literally thousands of PR runs and a few minutes every time, IMO it's not > worth it. > Anything that can be done by a machine should be done by a machine. I am not sure we have enough data to say it's only once or twice per release, and even if we were to issue a PR for each breakage, it's additional load on committers and reviewers, not to mention our own work. I personally don't see how 2-3 minutes of compute time per PR can justify hours of work plus reviews. iulian > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Hari Shreedharan < > hshreedha...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> +1, much better than having a new PR each time to fix something for >> scala-2.11 every time a patch breaks it. >> >> Thanks, >> Hari Shreedharan >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Michael Armbrust <mich...@databricks.com> >> wrote: >> >> How about just fixing the warning? I get it; it doesn't stop this from >>> happening again, but still seems less drastic than tossing out the >>> whole mechanism. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> It also does not seem that expensive to test only compilation for Scala >> 2.11 on PR builds. >> >> >> > -- -- Iulian Dragos ------ Reactive Apps on the JVM www.typesafe.com
