Thanks Ben -- I agree this is probably not the time to go all-in on this, if it's a major project. But I think it's a good time to come to some consensus on direction, so that other changes we make along the way support, or at least do not preclude, solving it later. In particular, I think we're in a situation where by not discussing our goals we have different people making contradictory changes. The part I'm concerned about -- the in-tree schedule machinery -- is still fairly actively developed, so it's going to evolve in some direction, and IMHO it's best that be one, positive direction.
Dustin 2017-05-19 16:08 GMT-04:00 Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us>: > Dustin, I am very interested in following up on this. I believe that our > current strategy of running every almost every test on every checkin is > unsustainable long-term, and we're going to have to move to a model where > expensive tests typically are run less frequently. In order to make this > successful, we're going to have to touch a lot of moving pieces: sheriffing, > autobisection, code coverage, writing more unit tests versus integration > tests, and so on, and so we need to carefully consider the order in which we > start making changes and the tooling required. > > I'm not sure that SFO is the right time for this though, especially if it > would distract from quantum work. > > --BDS > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM, <dmitch...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> Background: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1359942 >> >> As jobs move to taskcluster, we have an improved opportunity to do some >> smarter scheduling of what jobs to run on what sort of push. Of course, >> it's a thorny subject: optimizing away a task that should run may let a bad >> push show green, while a subsequent push bears responsibility for the orange >> it introduces. >> >> One of the more common expectations is that pushes that only change a >> directory affecting one platform should not cause other platforms' tasks to >> run. >> >> In the bug above, I have proposed a method of identifying pushes >> "affecting" a particular platform, and Greg has raised some concerns about >> the generality of my solution. I'm happy to generalize, but I would like to >> keep the process in motion rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the >> good. >> >> To that end, I'd like some further feedback on implementing this sort of >> optimization support. >> >> If there's sufficient interest, then this is probably something we could >> set up a time to talk about in SFO in June. >> >> Dustin >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-builds mailing list >> dev-builds@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-builds > > _______________________________________________ dev-builds mailing list dev-builds@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-builds
