On 07/31/2013 07:51 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <address@hidden
<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
On 07/31/2013 07:35 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to fire some regression builds on very minor
patches today,
and noticed (always known, but faced pain of 'waiting' today)
that we
can fire regression build on only one patch (or a patchset if its
submitted with dependency added while submitting). And each
regression
run takes approx 30mins.
With this model, we can at max take only ~45 patches in a day,
which
won't scale up if we want to grow with more people participating
in code
contribution. Would be great to have an option to submit
regression run
with multiple patch numbers, (technically they should be
applicable one
top of other in any order if not dependent), and it should work
fine.
That way, we can handle more review load in future.
When a regression fails how do you know who to blame?
I'd rather see more build machines (multiple VMs on a big
build.gluster.org <http://build.gluster.org> replacement box?)
instead to get more concurrency.
We already face that ambiguity when a patch has a dependent patch.
That's a bit of a special case. The dependent patch is often owned by
the same person, right? I would not want to make this harder for people
in the general case.
Multiple VMs will solve the problem, but I guess we need to figure out
how to get a bigger box etc.
Can the "slave" build machines be behind a firewall? I'm working on
getting the old Sunnyvale lab machines on-line in our new lab. Can we
use some of those?