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

Zachary Turner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Nov 9 16:05:49 PST 2017

Since it's towards the end of the day already, I'll put this in tomorrow
morning around 9 or 10, to make sure I'm around to fix anything that arises
(or revert).

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:53 PM Mike Edwards <medwards at apple.com> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171110/693ef0f0/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list