[petsc-dev] broken nightlybuilds (next vs next-tmp)

[Matthew Knepley]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> > > In the long term - Barry wants to get rid of next..
> >
> >
> > 1) I think next really prevents master from getting screwed up (witness
> > next)
> >
> > 2) I think we are actually finding interaction bugs there.
> >
> > Are those points wrong, or is there another way to do these things?
>
> Next is an intergration testing mechanism. The prerequisite for it [I
> think] is - one should test the branch properly before merging to
> next. However we are not doing proper testing before merge to next -
> and relying on next to do this part aswell.
>
> So with current next - it one has to figure out which branches are
> breaking the tests [takes time - which most of us are not doing] - and
> then hope it gets fixed quickly. Otherwise next stay broken for a long
> time [and other branches in next - which could be clean - don't
> receive sufficient confidence to graduate to master]
>
> So Barry's thought wrt getting next is to have a better way of testing
> feature branch one wants to test (i.e master+feature). Its not clear
> to me how many integration issues we've addressed with our current
> next model. [Its mostly been indvidual branch issues]
>
> Also if feature-1 and feature-2 are feature branches that are tested
> in next [wrt integration]. The following should be equivalent to
> testing 'master + feature1 + feature2' - aka current next model:
>
> 1. test master+feature1
> 2. success => merge feature1 to master
> 3. tets master+ feature2
> 3. success => merge feature2 to master
>
> Note: my next-tmp is an attempt to get closer to 'master+feature1'
> testing from 'master+feature1+feature2' testing [yeah - its more like
> master+2/3 branches in next-tmp vs master+10/15 branches in next.]
>
> Also I'm restarting next-tmp from a clean master when merging new set
> of branches to test. And throwing away branches with problems - and
> retest only after it has fixes [This way a broken branch does not keep
> next-tmp broken until it gets fixed.]


I don't think we have the resources to run full tests on every branch one
at a time. Do we?

   Matt


>
> Satish

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener

https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20171111/498dc86f/attachment.html>