[dmd-internals] automated merging, a status update
yebblies at gmail.com
Sat Nov 16 18:13:43 PST 2013
Changing the priority is a good idea, but I think we can only skip (or
de-prioritize) the master build if the last merge was an auto-merge. In
that case we've essentially just run the exact same tests and can be sure
they passed. After a manual merge... history tells us that's not always
As for the 'passed-at-one-point' auto-merge, this is probably fine. Maybe
add a limit to how old the old passing results can be? I expect this won't
be such a big problem if we have the prioritization.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
> Since this was turned on, here's the pulls that have automatically
> occurred. Yay!
> (2 others that I don't have the logs for, oops)
> 2013-11-15T22:14:32 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-15T23:36:53 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-16T00:58:58 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-16T02:21:52 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-16T03:27:19 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-16T04:46:16 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-16T10:26:06 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2013-11-16T12:04:29 - calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> (Where's the phobos guys.. everyone asleep still?)
> Currently the pace of merging is bottle necked by the slowest platform,
> the freebsd's. The current merge criteria is that all platforms must
> successfully complete a run. I'm considering changing that to something a
> little less conservative, like:
> 1) 5-ish platforms must have successfully re-built against the current
> 2) all platforms must have successfully built with _a_ master + the
> current pull sha (ie, results for out of date commits are ignored)
> Too conservative still? Not strict enough?
> I'm also considering a build ordering change. Right now master branch
> build have priority over pull builds. What do you guys think about moving
> the priority to:
> 1) pending merges
> 2) master branch
> 3) other pulls
> This will eliminate a good number of builds that cost considerable time,
> at the potential of not discovering a master break quite as quickly.
> Give me your thoughts on both changes.
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dmd-internals