This has now landed. So to re-iterate, if you see a "-1proc" suffix in the task symbol that means it is running with e10s disabled. Otherwise e10s is enabled. This symbol change will ride the trains (so you'll still see "-e10s" on other branches for the time being).
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:40 AM Andrew Halberstadt <a...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I had about 5 independent suggestions of "-sp" and I agree that it is much > better than "-fc". But another idea that came out of these conversations > was "1proc" which also ticks all the boxes (only being a tiny bit longer > than "e10s") and being even clearer than "-sp". I think I'll go with that > one. Thanks to everyone for all the feedback! > > -Andrew > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:36 AM Jonathan Kew <jfkth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 09/04/2019 20:44, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: >> > Yeah, I did consider "non-e10s" for awhile and maybe it is the better >> > choice. But here are my counter arguments: >> > >> > 1) One of the goals of this change is to de-clutter the treeherder UI. >> > Using an 8 character symbol suffix runs counter to that goal (even if >> it is >> > still less cluttered overall). >> > 2) People who use "e10s" in their |mach try fuzzy| queries out of muscle >> > memory (or in saved presets) will accidentally select the exact >> opposite of >> > what they want. >> > 3) For new contributors "e10s" is a code word anyway. It's just now they >> > need to learn "fc" instead of "e10s". >> > >> > None of those are terribly compelling, but it's still enough to make me >> > prefer "-fc". >> >> I think (1) and (2) here are good points; I'm less convinced by (3). >> Yes, e10s is a code word, but it's one that is pretty long-established >> and pervasive in the project and surrounding documentation (it even >> shows up in the names of about:config settings). It appeared in >> treeherder UI *because* it was a well-established term within the project. >> >> The proposed -fc suffix, on the other hand, seems gratuitously cryptic. >> If it had suddenly appeared in treeherder, I'd have been totally >> clueless as to its meaning; and even after seeing the announcement here, >> it feels like an artificial label that's trying a bit too hard to come >> up with a "clever" code where none is needed. It's not like we're >> starting with a standard multi-process configuration, and launching a >> grand "Fuel Cell" project that aims to merge the processes together. >> >> How about suffixing these jobs with -sp for "Single Process"? That would >> be a lot more transparent, IMO. >> >> JK >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
