On Monday, February 18, 2013 11:36:43 AM Osztrogonác Csaba wrote: > Hi, > > Simon Hausmann írta: > >> build.webkit.org > >> ================= > >> > >> - Qt Linux Release - 32 bit WK1 only build + layout tests + API tests > > > > This doesn't have WK2 anymore because of the WK2 lockdown, right? > > Exactly. Before WK2 lockdown, all Qt bots built WK2 too. But nowadays > WK2 build is broken regularly (day by day) for 10-50 revisions. In this > case it would be painful to lose the ability of catching layout test > regressions at least with WK1 builds.
Okay, fully agreed. > >> performance bots: > >> ------------------ > >> - Qt Linux 64-bit Release (Perf) - WK1 only build and perf tests > >> - Qt Linux 64-bit Release (WebKit2 Perf) - WK2 build and perf tests > >> > >> The performance results are collected by perf-o-matic server - > >> http://webkit-perf.appspot.com , but this tool is not user friendly > >> to catch performance regressions, because you have to select tests > >> one by one and check them manually. Nowadays they collect performance > >> results, but in these circumstances we need someone who actively checks > >> them. Do we want to appoint someone, or reuse these resources for more > >> important tasks? > > > > What's a good frequency for checking? How much work is it? Can it be done > > once a week with an effort of say 30 minutes? > > Unfortunately there isn't a good choice now. Unfortunately you have to > check tests one by one on http://webkit-perf.appspot.com if you would > like to catch a performance regression. I don't think if anybody's dream > is this monotonic slave work :) In my opinion it would be better to > improve the appspot and/or implement a new one which is less glittering, > but more useful to catch performance regressions _automatically_. Okay. In that case perhaps those bots should be removed to lighten the maintenance on your end? I recall that we found a few regressions with this in the past, but I don't remember exactly how much effort was involved in finding them. Either way I fully agree that monotonic slave work is nobody's dream and I think that we must avoid it. > >> offline bots: > >> -------------- > >> - Qt Linux ARMv7 Release - It is offline, because we have a same > >> > >> bot on build.webkit.sed.hu to build ARM binaries for the tester bot. > >> > >> These bots were not used for a long time. We suggest to > >> delete them completely from build.webkit.org waterfall. > >> What do you think about it? > > > > Sounds good. Although... wouldn't it be nice to have the Qt Linux ARMv7 > > Release bot building on build.webkit.org, for better visibility? > > We don't have two ARM bots to avoid duplication of the same > bot. Unfortunately the ARM tester slave isn't in a good shape > to move it to build.webkit.org and has some tricky local hack > now which makes the migration impossible (for exmaple: the tester > slave runs on x86 to reduce the runtime, but ssh to the board to call > run-webkit-tests with some additional flag, etc.) > > http://build.webkit.sed.hu/builders/ARMv7%20Linux%20Qt5%20Release%20%28Test% > 29?numbuilds=200 > > And unfortunately the builder and tester slaves must be on the same > buildbot master, because a builder on build.webkit.org can't trigger > the tester slave on build.webkit.sed.hu and provide the binary WebKit > for it. Okay, I see. That makes perfect sense :). Then let's just have one set on build.webkit.sed.hu, if that works best for you guys. Simon _______________________________________________ webkit-qt mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-qt
