[llvm-dev] PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Nov 9 13:37:36 PST 2017
Hi all, I think I've addressed all the concerns here, and I believe there
should be no immediate impact to the current workflow. with that said, I
plan to commit this either later today or early tomorrow if there are no
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:19 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> I tested this out, and AFAICT nothing will change. It will continue to
> just work if you have it checked out under clang/tests. It's a bit hard to
> construct this configuration locally since it requires moving some files
> around, and applying half of a CL here and half of a CL there. But, AFAICT
> it works.
> I'm happy to send you some patches if you want to try them locally and
> I'd like to print out a CMake warning if it detects the tree under
> clang/test and just mention that the workflow is deprecated. Any
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM Mike Edwards <medwards at apple.com> wrote:
>> Thank you Zach.
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 13:37, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>> I’m going to spend a little time seeing if i can make the change
>> invisible to the bots so they will continue to work as they do today. Will
>> report back after I’ve explored that a bit
>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM Mike Edwards <medwards at apple.com> wrote:
>>> I'm honestly not opposed to this idea. It just seems a shame to do this
>>> for purely logistical reasons if most people agree that the "right" place
>>> for debuginfo-tests is outside of the clang tree.
>>> I totally understand what you are saying here and will just add that
>>> sometimes being part of a larger community means being willing to do
>>> things, sometimes, not exactly the “right” way, due to logistical reasons.
>>> I am not opposed to what you would like to do, I’m just furrowing my brow
>>> at the timeframe in which to do it.
>>> That said, I'd still like to hear from ChrisM and MikeE about why it
>>> will take so long, because on the surface it seems like a low-impact move.
>>> Past experience has taught me, anything I think is going to be simple
>>> and quick to fix, rarely ever turns out that way. While there will be a
>>> significant amount of work to change the way our bots work here at Apple,
>>> the work is not impossible to accomplish. Given the choice, I would of
>>> course prefer an approach such as Paulr has suggested. The ability to run
>>> things in parallel for a time provides for a much lower impact change on
>>> the entire community. I think this approach may also give us some time to
>>> decide where the debuginfo-test should fit in the new mono-repo. It would
>>> be a bummer to do the work necessary to make this change, only to discover
>>> we would have to do it differently in the not too distant future to
>>> accommodate the new mono-repo.
>>> Zach, I do not want to be a blocker here. I just want to make sure we
>>> have explored all of the options to make sure we are not missing a lower
>>> impact approach. I also want to make sure we are not doing something that
>>> could wait until we migrate to the mono-repo next year.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev