[llvm-dev] PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly

[Mike Edwards via llvm-dev]

Hi Zach,
Thanks for doing this extra work to make this lower impact for the rest of us.  Let’s give it a try and see what happens.

-Mike



> On Nov 9, 2017, at 13:37, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 other concerns.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:19 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto: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 confirm.
> 
> 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 objections?
> 
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM Mike Edwards <medwards at apple.com <mailto:medwards at apple.com>> wrote:
> Thank you Zach.
> 
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 13:37, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171109/ee1e1218/attachment.html>