[phobos] phobos commit, revision 2028
Steve Schveighoffer
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 21 09:24:10 PDT 2010
The current SVN server is 1.4.5 (see http://svn.dsource.org/projects/phobos/)
Merge tracking wasn't added until 1.5. I'd oppose any use of branches/merging
unless svn was upgraded. I've tried to use merging with the std.process stuff
and it's a nightmare. Basically, svn has no clue where changes came from, so
unless you have really really simple merging (i.e. you only merge one direction
*once*) it's more trouble than it's worth.
But I've been following this discussion quietly, and I don't really understand
the objection to checking in changes that break other builds. It's not like
checking in changes is a release, so it has no bearing on people who aren't
actively developing phobos/druntime. Isn't it enough for Brad's automated
builds to maybe just post an email to this list when a build fails (after he
changes it to be triggered by checkins of course)? And then it's just on the
developer to make sure it works on his system at least (shame on you if you
checkin a change that wasn't tested in at least *one* system). In other words,
why should each developer check all builds when we have an automated system that
does that?
-Steve
----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com>
> To: Discuss the phobos library for D <phobos at puremagic.com>
> Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 12:07:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [phobos] phobos commit, revision 2028
>
> It's doable with svn too. When we initiated the repository I'd created a
> "candidate" branch that was parallel with the trunk. The idea was that
> anything not-yet-sure was to go in candidate, reviewed, tested, and then
> merged into the trunk.
>
> As there were only 2-3 people working on Phobos at the time, the
> practice was more overhead than usefulness so it was abandoned. PErhaps
> we should reenact it.
>
>
> Andrei
>
> On 9/21/10 10:53 CDT, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > I think if we used something like Git, commits could be made to a staging
>area where unit testing was done before publishing the changes to the central
>repository. Not as easy with SVN though.
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >
> >> All great initiatives. But the point is to verify that stuff builds
>_before_, not _after_, the commit. Until we have Unix, Windows, and OSX
>machines that we can all ssh into, that won't be possible.
> >>
> >> As unpleasant as that is to some of us, I think we need to impose anyone
>who commits to use some Unix as their development platform. (There are many
>reasons. One is, it wouldn't be reasonable to develop on Windows or OSX as one
>needs to pay to get them.) Linux has wine, which is stable enough to be a good
>test bed for Windows code. That means any of us can build and unittest for at
>least two operating systems.
> >>
> >> Just a reminder: with the current posix.mak running on Linux, to unittest,
>type:
> >>
> >> make unittest
> >>
> >> and to unittest under wine, type:
> >>
> >> make OS=win32wine unittest
> >>
> >> If somebody wants to develop on Windows and build on cygwin, that's fine
>too, but cygwin support is not currently in our makefile. It would be a great
>addition.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrei
> >>
> >> On 09/18/2010 09:14 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> >>> Emails are on my todo list. My top plans:
> >>>
> >>> 1) track svn revision id's
> >>>
> >>> 2) change the build rate to be reactive to submissions (ie, potentially
>much
> >>> faster than once an hour, but also not at all when no changes have been
>submitted)
> >>>
> >>> 3) send breakage emails
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I should move #3 to be #1. I can add the changes that caused the
> >>> brokenness later. Would everyone be ok with receiving one mail every
time
> >>> anything breaks in any build? Right now that'd mean roughly 2 emails per
>hour
> >>> while things are broken.. potentially 4 per hour when osx/freebsd are
>added.
> >>>
> >>> Another thought I had was to have each build cycle contain one and only
>one
> >>> change. If multiple changes come in between runs, still just increment
>through
> >>> them with a couple back-to-back builds. It'd make it a lot easier to see
> >>> exactly which change introduced breakage.
> >>>
> >>> Some thoughts on your list..
> >>>
> >>> 1) I've noticed that most of the breakages have been platform specific.
> >>> Interestingly, most of them have NOT been in platform specific code.
>So... why?
> >>> (Yes, yours was in posix path handling, but that's not typical for the
>last
> >>> couple weeks).
> >>>
> >>> 2) I find this one easy enough to work around by using two trees.. one
>being my
> >>> do lots of development stuff, all over the place as the fancy suits me.
>The
> >>> second being the 'carve off a set to be checked in'. I use the latter to
>avoid
> >>> exactly the problem you mention, allowing the testing of the set to submit
>in
> >>> isolation. The cost of moving changes over adds overhead, but usually
>isn't
> >>> nearly as hard as writing the code in the first place and is something you
>get
> >>> better at with just a little practice.
> >>>
> >>> But, yes, absolutely, things happen and that's ok. Reacting and resolving
>when
> >>> they do is as important as any other step of the development process.
> >>>
> >>> Later,
> >>> Brad
> >>>
> >>> On 9/18/2010 7:00 PM, David Simcha wrote:
> >>>> Yea, I'm guilty of breaking the Linux builds. I think a good
>enhancement to
> >>>> your auto testing system would be to have it automatically nag the Phobos
>list
> >>>> whenever something breaks (instead of you doing it manually). The
>reasons why
> >>>> things slip through the cracks seem to be:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Breaking platform-specific code for a platform you don't develop
on.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Bits of code in your tree that you never committed that you forgot
>about,
> >>>> that change the results.
> >>>>
> >>>> Realistically, these things will always slip through the cracks once in a
>while,
> >>>> but when they do quick and automatic feedback is a Good Thing (TM).
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/18/2010 9:45 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> >>>>> I just tried building with link upgraded to the 8.00.7 beta.. no
better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guys, it's really important that all of these packages continue to build
>and
> >>>>> pass their respective tests. It seems like we can't go more than a day
>or so
> >>>>> without something new being introduced that breaks something.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recognize that we're all volunteers here, but please be responsible
>for making
> >>>>> sure your changes don't cause any platform to stop building and passing
>tests.
> >>>>> It might well be that there's a lurking problem that's just surfaced
>somehow,
> >>>>> but the bottom line is that being unable to build and run the tests
>successfully
> >>>>> is a blocker for everyone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also recognize that not everyone has access to more than one
>platform. That's
> >>>>> exactly one of the reasons I setup the auto build/test system.
>Hopefully we'll
> >>>>> get os/x and freebsd added soon. Use it.. watch the results.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In case your head has been in the sand, the url:
> >>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fix or revert.. file bugs.. figure out work arounds.. but don't leave
>broken.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Brad
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 9/18/2010 5:49 PM, David Simcha wrote:
> >>>>>> Yeh, I had experimentally added std.parallelism to my DMD directory
>and
> >>>>>> compiled Phobos and encountered similar things. When I ran the
>unittests for
> >>>>>> std.parallelism by itself, they passed. Whenever I ran them along with
>the rest
> >>>>>> of Phobos, there was an access violation somewhere (I don't know
>where). I
> >>>>>> didn't say anything because I wasn't sure where the bug was at the
>time, and
> >>>>>> didn't have a clue where to start tracking it down.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/18/2010 8:39 PM, Shin Fujishiro wrote:
> >>>>>>> Brad Roberts<braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The win32 phobos tests started failing after this submit.. with an
>access
> >>>>>>>> violation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?dataid=3525
> >>>>>>> ; Probably it's related to the executable size.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With the following pragma, I found that the access violation starts
> >>>>>>> from about 82 instantiations of std.typecons.Tuple.
> >>>>>>> ----------
> >>>>>>> struct Tuple(Specs...)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> pragma(msg, "@@@");
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> ----------
> >>>>>>> Removing some Tuple instantiations in Tuple's unittests suppressed
the
> >>>>>>> access violation. Try removing first two blocks in Tuple's
>unittests;
> >>>>>>> phobos tests should succeed with no access violation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or, run the tests without a random module. For instance, inserting
> >>>>>>> __EOF__ at the beginning of std/json.d fixes the access violation!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My commit r2025 erased the body of a dummy function in Tuple. I
>reckon
> >>>>>>> that changeset could suppress the access violation thanks to smaller
> >>>>>>> executable. Now, another commit increased the size, and...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shin
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> phobos mailing list
> >>> phobos at puremagic.com
> >>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> phobos mailing list
> >> phobos at puremagic.com
> >> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > phobos mailing list
> > phobos at puremagic.com
> > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
More information about the phobos
mailing list