[lldb-dev] hold off on check-ins, please [ALL CLEAR]

[Todd Fiala]

All good to hear.

Let me know when we have hardware and I will get them build bots a-running
:-)

-Todd


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Todd Fiala <tfiala at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I generally sync llvm/clang in the AM, locked, and work with that
>> throughout the day.  If I kept up with TOT on all, all day long, I'm pretty
>> sure my work machine, big as it is, would be building all day long ;-)
>>
>
> This certainly isn't true for LLVM, Clang, and LLD themselves. With
> cmake+ninja, it is not at all burdensome. I'm on the extreme end and will
> routinely update over 40 or 50 times a day.
>
>
>> The only time this has bitten me is when something LLDB depends on
>> changes. Then I fix that or synch to the fix requirement that somebody else
>> made.
>>
>> Are you suggesting something different?
>>
>
> I'm suggesting a) *always* sync in or order to "fix" so that it is easy to
> make cross-cutting changes without people wasting time inventing a
> compatible way of doing it, and b) to including syncing every repo as the
> first step of any "i have tests failing in a clean build?" sanity check.
> Certainly, that seems more productive than asking people to stop committing.
>
> In LLVM land we have build bots that make sure that if anyone breaks
> tests, the patch is reverted. Really, really fast. As a consequence, there
> is never a need to "stop committing". I think that's a much healthier plan
> especially with increasingly distributed contributors to LLDB.
>
> Just my 2 cents though. As I said, I'm just lurking here. =D
>



-- 
Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfiala at google.com | 650-943-3180
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140729/0ad1afd9/attachment.html>