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.com>wrote:
>
>> 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 maintain the rule of "every bot green all the time", which is
> what you're supposed to do as sheriff. And when I maintain it, I need to
> keep the tree closed for long periods while I deal with the myriad of issues
> that come up.
>
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 without closing the tree (e.g. a couple flaky
webkit tests should not close the tree).
I *do* think it is a team goal to have every bot green all the time, but
that goal is achieved by reducing flakiness, not by keeping the tree closed
until all the flakiness has been properly documented (e.g. listed in
test_expectations.txt). It's also a team goal to keep the tree open for >7
hours in every eight hour period. The latter is primarily the responsibility
of the sheriffs.
> Solving the problem by having the tree open if things "aren't too bad" is
> not good enough. Right now I just checked and the purify and valgrind bots
> were red. As usual. No sign of anyone looking into them.
>
This is not a solution, but closing the tree doesn't really solve it either.
We need to put more burden on the sheriffs to watch and address these bots,
which, perhaps you're right that we should have more sheriffs.
Ojan
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
