On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Junio, > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Part of the reason is that you push out all of the branches in one go, >> > typically at the very end of your work day. The idea of Continuous >> > Integration is a little orthogonal to that style, suggesting to build >> > & test whenever new changes come into the integration branch. >> > >> > As a consequence, my original setup was a little overloaded: the VM >> > sat idle most of the time, and when you pushed, it was overloaded. >> >> I do not see pushing out all them in one go is making the problem worse >> for you, though. > > Oh no, you don't see that? Then let me spell it out a little more > clearly: when you push out four branches at the same time, the same > Virtual Machine that hosts all of the build agents has to build each and > everyone of them, then run the entire test suite. > > As I have pointed out at several occasions (but I was probably complaining > too much about it, so you probably ignored it), the test suite uses shell > scripting a lot, and as a consequence it is really, really slow on > Windows. Meaning that even on a high-end VM, it typically takes 1.5 hours > to run the test suite. That's without SVN tests. > > So now we have up to four build agents banging at the same CPU and RAM, > competing for resources. Now it takes more like 2-3 hours to run the > entire build & test. > > The situation usually gets a little worse, even: you sometimes push out > several iterations of `pu` in relatively rapid succession, "rapid" being > relative to the time taken by the builds. > > That means that there are sometimes four jobs still hogging the VM when > the next request to build & test `pu` arrives, and sometimes there is > another one queued before the first job finishes. > > Naturally, the last two jobs will have started barely before Travis > decides that it waited long enough (3 hours) to call it quits. > > To answer your implied question: the situation would be much, much better > if the branches with more time in-between. > > But as I said, I understand that it would be asking you way too much to > change your process that seems to work well for you. Is getting the results of these builds time-critical? If not perhaps an acceptable solution would be to use a source repo that's time-delayed, e.g. 24hrs behind on average from Junio's git.git, and where commits are pushed in at some configurable trickle. >> As of this writing, master..pu counts 60+ first-parent merges. >> Instead of pushing out the final one at the end of the day, I could >> push out after every merge. Behind the scenes, because some topics >> are extended or tweaked while I read the list discussion, the number >> of merges I am doing during a day is about twice or more than that >> before I reach the final version for the day. >> >> Many issues can be noticed locally even before the patches hit a >> topic, before the topic gets merged to 'pu', or before the tentative >> 'pu' is pushed out, and breakage at each of these points can be >> locally corrected without bothering external test setups. I've been >> assuming that pushing out all in one go at the end will help >> reducing the load at external test setups. > > Pushing out only four updates at the end of the day is probably better > than pushing after every merge, for sure. > > Ciao, > Dscho