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

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

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/20171107/de4c272f/attachment.html>