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

[jingham at apple.com]

If I'm working on something like stepping or process control or whatever, I don't really need to know whether there's some change in llvm land, I'm not touching those code paths.  There is quite a lot of lldb that doesn't go through the expression evaluator, or only requires that you have some working version, not the most recent one.  So I go for days quite happily not updating my llvm/clang checkout.  I only bother about that if I'm working on the type system or expression evaluator.  Moreover, I don't really want to know that somebody broke something in clang/llvm and then fixed it a couple of hours later.  That is just noise that is not helpful to the work I am doing.

So I tend to not update my clang/llvm checkouts till something - usually some interface change that somebody else checks into lldb - forces me to.

Jim


> On 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
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev