On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:32 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't agree with this. The build farm clearly has more ways to > break than CI, because it has more CPUs, compilers, operating systems, > combinations of configure options and rolls of the timing dice, but CI > now catches a lot and, importantly, *before* it reaches the 'farm and > everyone starts shouting a lot of stuff at you that you already knew, > because it's impacting their work.
Right. I really don't can't imagine how CI could be seen as anything less than a very significant improvement. It wasn't that long ago that commits that certain kinds of work that used OS facilities would routinely break Windows in some completely predictable way. Just breaking every single Windows buildfarm animal was almost a routine occurrence. It was normal. Remember that? Of course it is also true that anything that breaks the buildfarm today will be disproportionately difficult and subtle. You really do have 2 buildfarms to break -- it's just that one of those buildfarms can be broken and fixed without it bothering anybody else, which is typically enough to prevent breaking the real buildfarm. But only if you actually check both! -- Peter Geoghegan
