Autoland is not yet optimal but the team continues to work on it. Long term I think we want as much of our load to go through autoland as possible so that we can apply a consistent approach to how code is integrated into the tree. I would encourage you to use autoland. Tryserver wait times should be significantly lower now. If try wait times increase (and we're watching), we will deal with it.
Lawrence On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Jared Wein <j...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Do we need autoland to land each patch independently? If I have three > disparate patches that I can land right now, should I use mozreview to land > them and use 3x the infra or use checkin-needed and their checkin will > likely be coalesced? > > This is the position that I face often and is why I choose to use > checkin-needed. Along with jesup, I've waited hours for tryserver results > in the past and I want to be a "good citizen" and not increase infra > demands. > > Am I in the wrong here? Ideally autoland would have some heuristic for > coalescing requests so we can be polite to the build system and the people > waiting on it. > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Andrew McCreight <amccrei...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Martin Thomson <m...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > > Is now the right time to start talking about retiring checkin-needed, > > > or is it still heavily used? > > > > > > > It is useful for anybody who doesn't use MozReview. FWIW I see 14 bugs > with > > it set right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Felipe G <fel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Is there a way to make the checkin-needed flag generate a template > > > comment > > > >> (like the approval-* ones do) with something like this? (Or > encourage > > > >> people to use the per-patch checkin? flag) > > > >> > > > >> """ > > > >> Has this patch been through try? [ Yes / No, I believe it's not > > > necessary ] > > > >> Does this patch contain the correct author / commit message? [ Yes > > > >> (preferred) / No, but I'm providing it here: ] > > > >> Are there any other dependencies that should be landed together? [ > > Yes, > > > ... > > > >> / No ] > > > >> """ > > > >> > > > >> Probably just asking if the information is present will reduce the > > > number > > > >> of requests made without it > > > >> > > > > > > > > My knee jerk reaction is we shouldn't bother: MozReview handles most > of > > > > this "validation" and usage of MozReview has been steadily > increasing. > > > > We're trending towards a world where the only patches on Splinter are > > for > > > > security-sensitive bugs (MozReview can't handle those yet) and the > > people > > > > submitting patches to security bugs tend to know what they're doing > so > > I > > > > don't think these added checks will help. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen < > rya...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > FWIW, there's also an MDN page that documents a lot of this as > well: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mercurial/Using_Mercurial#How_can_I_generate_a_patch_for_somebody_else_to_check-in_for_me.3F > > > >> > > > > >> > -Ryan > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On 7/8/2016 2:32 AM, Carsten Book wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Hi, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> someone might not know that doing checkins for checkin-needed > > > request is > > > >> >> not automated yet and completely a fully human task :) (no we > > > Sheriffs > > > >> are > > > >> >> not bots ;) > > > >> >> > > > >> >> It would help us a lot if a checkin needed request would contain > > > >> complete > > > >> >> Author/Patch information like: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> - Author (use the information from their Bugzilla account if > > > needed) > > > >> >> with Name *and *Emailadress. > > > >> >> - Bug number > > > >> >> - Commit message (keeping in mind that the commit message > should > > > be a > > > >> >> brief description of what the patch is *doing*) > > > >> >> - Format should be something like "Bug 123456 - Add a null > > > check > > > >> to > > > >> >> XYZ to avoid a crash. r=somebody" > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> And also if there is a specific sequence/dependency you want to > > > checkin > > > >> >> the > > > >> >> patches it would help also a lot if you could make a short > comment > > > in > > > >> the > > > >> >> Bug like please checkin part x then patch y or like first bug 123 > > > then > > > >> >> this > > > >> >> bug and then bug 8910. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> This would help us a lot :) > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks! > > > >> >> > > > >> >> - Tomcat > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > dev-platform mailing list > > > >> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > > >> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> dev-platform mailing list > > > >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > > >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > dev-platform mailing list > > > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dev-platform mailing list > > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
