On 07/31/2013 07:51 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx>> 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?
-- Kaleb
