[llvm-dev] Clarification on expectations of buildbot email notifications (original) (raw)

David Blaikie via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 21 09:06:41 PST 2019

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:26 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

+1 to Justin's comment

The only standard for revert should be: it's broken, and here's a reproducer. Nothing else should matter.

+1 here.

With only some wiggle room for "is this regression only in some esoteric mode that only this person/group cares about & it's unreasonable to expect other people to care about/be able to reproduce" (even something like: I can only reproduce this while running on certain hardware, where it's unreasonable to expect someone else to have that hardware - then it gets into weird cases where the esoteric hardware owner can reasonable slow down the rest of the project by having a patch reverted while they investigate, or if they should take the cost of having their branch broken while they investigate & the project continues on regardless, to some degree)

... says the person w/a ton of internal regression testing which regularly finds crashes upstream, and is terrified of the implied effort of having to engage each author of a broken patch individually while being unable to ship or see what other breakage is coming in. Admittedly, self serving perspective. :)

Philip p.s. Speaking personally, I actually prefer having a patch of mine simply reverted w/o discussion when there's a problem. This way there's no expectation of timely response on my side, and if I happen to be out of office, or on vacation, I can get to it when I get back and have time. I do expect to be informed of the revert of course.

Yeah, I'm of two minds about this personally - I personally get frustrated (but honestly, it's probably as much frustrattion with myself than anyone else) when a patch is reverted for relatively trivial reasons - like a mistyped CHECK line (oh, this should have "requires: asserts"? OK). I'd personally appreciate some courtesy from folks - and tend to extend the same in return (you broke the -Werror build? Oh, I'll just add that cast-to-void to fix your unused variable warning in non-asserts builds, etc).

On 2/20/19 1:35 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev wrote: > Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:13 AM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 02/20/2019 07:39 AM, via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> Reid said: >>>> >>>>> I don't think whether a buildbot sends email should have anything to do >>>>> with whether we revert to green or not. Very often, developers commit >>>>> patches that cause regressions not caught by our buildbots. If the >>>>> regression is severe enough, then I think community members have the >>>>> right, and perhaps responsibility, to revert the change that caused it. >>>>> Our team maintains bots that build chrome with trunk versions of clang, >>>>> and we identify many regressions this way and end up doing many reverts >>>>> as a result. I think it's important to continue this practice so that >>>>> we don't let multiple regressions pile up. >>>> My team also has internal bots and we see breakages way more often than >>>> we'd like. We are a bit reluctant to just go revert something, though, >>>> and typically try to engage the patch author first. >>>> >>>> Engaging the author has a couple of up-sides: it respects the author's >>>> contribution and attention to the process; and once you've had to fix >>>> a particular problem yourself (rather than someone else cleaning up >>>> after your mess) you are less likely to repeat that mistake. >>>> >>> In my opinion engaging the author first is the best approach for internal >>> bots, and I think this should be captured in some way in the developer >>> guide. >>> >>> We don't want to send the message that is OK to revert patches at any >>> time just because one of your internal tests failed. In my experience >>> most community members do engage with the author first, like Paul >>> describes, >>> so this isn't usually a problem, but new contributors may not be familiar >>> with this precedent. >>> >>> -Tom >> This is kind of what I was getting at with my original email, so thank you >> for wording it better than I did. >> >> If we can agree that "contact the author first for internal bots" is better >> than "revert automatically, even for internal bots" (which may not be the >> case, I don't want to speak for others), then the problem becomes one of >> defining what an "internal bot" is. In my opinion, an internal bot it is >> one that does does not satisfy both conditions: a) on the public waterfall, >> b) automatically sends notifications, but perhaps not everyone agrees with >> this definition. > I would argue that "internal vs external" is the wrong division here. > It does come up that internal bots or weird local configurations find > significant problems in practice sometimes, and reverting to green can > be completely reasonable for these cases. Obviously some discretion is > necessary, but reverting more or less any change that causes issues > severe enough to legitimately block you or seriously hamper your ability > to notice further issues is fair game in my eyes. > > Like Reid says, the important part about reverting is the contract > between the person doing the revert and the original committer. When a > patch is reverted, the reverter has a responsibility for making sure the > originator has the means to fix whatever problem they found. Any revert > that isn't tied to a public bot absolutely must come with reasonable > instructions to reproduce the problem, and the reverter needs to > actively engage with the originator to get the patch back in in a form > that doesn't hit the problem. _> ________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190221/46602c0b/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list