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

Hi all, I think I've addressed all the concerns here, and I believe there
should be no immediate impact to the current workflow.  with that said, I
plan to commit this either later today or early tomorrow if there are no
other concerns.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:19 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
> 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/20171109/ac22ca05/attachment.html>

Hi Zach,
Thanks for doing this extra work to make this lower impact for the rest of us. 
Let’s give it a try and see what happens.

-Mike


> On Nov 9, 2017, at 13:37, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
> 
> Hi all, I think I've addressed all the concerns here, and I believe
there should be no immediate impact to the current workflow.  with that said, I
plan to commit this either later today or early tomorrow if there are no other
concerns.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:19 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com
<mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
> 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
<mailto:medwards at apple.com>> wrote:
> Thank you Zach.
> 
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 13:37, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com
<mailto: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/20171109/ee1e1218/attachment.html>

Since it's towards the end of the day already, I'll put this in tomorrow
morning around 9 or 10, to make sure I'm around to fix anything that arises
(or revert).



On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:53 PM Mike Edwards <medwards at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Zach,
> Thanks for doing this extra work to make this lower impact for the rest of
> us.  Let’s give it a try and see what happens.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2017, at 13:37, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all, I think I've addressed all the concerns here, and I believe
there
> should be no immediate impact to the current workflow.  with that said, I
> plan to commit this either later today or early tomorrow if there are no
> other concerns.
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:19 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at
google.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20171110/693ef0f0/attachment.html>