llvm dev - Nov 2017 - PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly

> 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/20171106/9a3de66b/attachment.html>

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/20171106/ac03d2f9/attachment.html>

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
<mailto: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/20171106/23fe66b7/attachment.html>