[phobos] [dmd-internals] automated merging, a status update

[Daniel Murphy]

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
the case.

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/
> 2773
> 2013-11-15T23:36:53 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2770
> 2013-11-16T00:58:58 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2778
> 2013-11-16T02:21:52 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2777
> 2013-11-16T03:27:19 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2765
> 2013-11-16T04:46:16 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2779
> 2013-11-16T10:26:06 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2781
> 2013-11-16T12:04:29 -   calling github to merge D-Programming-Language/dmd/
> 2782
>
> (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
> master
>   and
>   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 current pull sha  (ie, results for out of date commits are ignored)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.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20131117/2ca6e7b2/attachment.html>