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
> through other means in the debug version.
No, they do not currently build the release version.
Nicolas
>
> -atw
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nicolas Sylvain <nsylv...@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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 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 engineers.
>>>
>>> For the record, I completely support immediate backouts of changes
>>> that break the tree, and agree that all changes should go through the
>>> trybots -- but sometimes the trybots don't work. I don't know anything
>>> about the architectural differences between the trybots and buildbots,
>>> but from recent experience I think the trybots are trying to do
>>> incremental builds, when that isn't guaranteed to always work.
>>>
>> even the bots on the main waterfall do incremental builds (except some of
>> them).
>> If the change requires a clobber, use "gcl try CHANGENAME -c" to run the
>> code
>> on the try bot doing a full build.
>>
>>>
>>> If it's just a matter of throwing hardware at the problem of making
>>> the trybots nearly 100% reliable I think we should make that
>>> investment.
>>
>>
>>> -Ken
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <b...@chromium.org
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>> close
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> tree can be reverted if it can't be fixed in <2 minutes.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > How about:
>>> >> > 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
>>> next 5
>>> >> > minutes.
>>> >> > I can't fix _any_ problem in 2 minutes. But I can fix most of them
>>> in
>>> >> > 5.
>>> >> > The goal is to allow the author a reasonable chance to fix trivial
>>> >> > problems
>>> >> > before we revert. And I think the tree should go ahead and close
>>> during
>>> >> > that interval.
>>> >> > PK
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
