Re: Regressions getting more common
Kamil Rytarowski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Luis, I talked to Sergio and his ex-boss from Red Hat as I proposed to maintain the CI infrastructure on behalf of my new company - Moritz Systems (www.moritz.systems). Unfortunately RH currently cannot rearrange the budgets, but how about Linaro? We could spare a dedicated developer full-time or part-time to monitor the reports and maintain the infrastructure. We are experienced in maintaining CI infrastructure for years in the BSD distribution development is a heavy CI workflow (multiple CPUs, multiple tests, emulators, real machines etc). Can we discuss it further? Best regards, Kamil Rytarowski CTO, Moritz Systems www.moritz.systems On 13.10.2020 19:05, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know about other non-x86 architectures, but over the past year > I've been noticing more and more regressions being introduced, > unnoticed, for ARM/AArch64. This is not good and causes a lot of pain if > you have to keep tracking things manually, like we do now. > > The buildbots worked great for this very purpose, but Sergio has moved > on to other duties (thanks for all the work!) and can't maintain it > anymore. The builders are still there though, sitting mostly idle. > We have a beefy ARM/AArch64 builder, which I can maintain for others to > use. > > We can do better than to declare things OK after a single round of tests > under x86, which has been the trend unfortunately. > > The subject of better CI has come up multiple times on IRC, with sad > memories of the gerrit experiment's demise. Now we're left with review > by e-mail and no broad testing. > > I think we need to discuss better validation pre-commit and possible CI > solutions for GDB. It is pretty easy to exercise x86, but it doesn't > sound fair to other architectures to have to keep cleaning up after > things that have only been validated on that architecture. > > It would be great to establish a roadmap so we can get GDB's testing to > today's standards, and maybe revisit the use of more modern patch review > tools while at it. > > What do you think?
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEELaxVpweEzw+lMDwuS7MI6bAudmwFAl+HFdIACgkQS7MI6bAu dmxB4g/+PQLktxfyCezddGP+mx5eYSjQMCaO22VXm5ZsBZER6BgRJ6zEY0iv1f/Y AecPaZubebN8ei2ahHWteuUff4yf2NCdE1G+HK1zFOxP/4rv6jYxRwd/D4HBeCJv i7wodFAkHsZ3eemPYyaX24PbdmIwQ5obri0C/+7wbtgl3BVam0wIe/UCb+PZSA8l bTfIR8djkVJqVNIkd2ksqs/fjukZZNjJcqRvG8z6ud2GVgjupkRnJQqwTfh6FXlF 5FSbD4NiLA4+fOs+gavPJOtAfRtfYuy9+ABc9wgRv/nDtO1ylGs+oaGRPQSC/RLq xvA0PvowbFuowT18Nf9WOMeGhruOInozGANvOJ1jSkep2z7d/2Q/z3jk+aTH6R85 bDEd18K+M5y3FkU3wPF++MVXajhu1+CYTwtPFgrn84khjzjMd6ClSG5WPCrR5fVb EJGdjLSSPbYQ6qPJ3l+I6jIA8CWd8264j5tUavjydXlZLF9Nx5yy9axsimsdPsh/ iHikwzIjdsz9YYH5SN0iY0GifhM07ibjlszC3Ewd2Sybb3LB57gws01wqrL035b6 9FLM071NZ7BHojrmN0u9cUrSku7LpqnP5gPY2NZ1Fs59D1QB2ezS2onk+PgyJ+WK GlXfU5XZbG8HF3ubQDcO3zW0JRUhsAzaQwXWTg0LFzd0gQMelkM= =nZvN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----