[PATCH] D29050: [zorg] Add AOSP builder

[Stephen Hines via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

srhines added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29050#657379, @rengolin wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29050#655922, @srhines wrote:
>
> > Are you sure that you want to always be syncing AOSP? There is a good chance that the AOSP build could break for reasons beyond the control of the LLVM community. It might be better to pick a particular AOSP release to minimize those kinds of issues. One other potential problem is going to be the increasing presence of stricter warnings/errors from Clang. These can also cause issues with AOSP.
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Do you have a marker for "good" reviews? This could either be a tag or branch, but it could also be the result of some public buildbot being green.


Nope. There are no public AOSP buildbots maintained by Google, nor do I know of any current plans to expose this (although I wish we would do it). Part of the problem is that it really comes down to knowing that a given manifest is acceptable, so it is more than just a single CL.

> If there isn't an easy way to do this, I agree that sticking to a known release is better, but with the caveat that the bot manager manually changes the revision every time there's a new stable.

Maintenance Releases (MRs) come out fairly often, so it's not like this is only a once per year thing.

> It isn't very helpful to know we can build AOSP a year ago. :)

True, but there is a lot of AOSP that doesn't change (external/ projects rarely get modified that much). We have definitely seen instability from upstream Clang (ha, that's what I am up chasing right now), so there is value in just compiling a large codebase like AOSP with an active Clang.

> cheers,
> --renato




https://reviews.llvm.org/D29050