use the gecko.v2 TaskCluster routes

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

Testing
mozregression
RESOLVED FIXED
3 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: parkouss, Assigned: parkouss)

Tracking

(Blocks: 2 bugs)

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

49 bytes, text/x-github-pull-request
wlach
: review+
Details | Review | Splinter Review
(Assignee)

Description

3 years ago
Currently for firefox and fennec we use the old route buildbot.*. We should not do that anymore, the gecko.v2.* routes should be the way to go now (it is better structured, and more builds are available).

Since gecko.v2.* routes are fully working since the August 1st 2015, I wanted to wait a bit before activating that. I don't think maintaining the two set of routes is something we should do (can be a bit complicated, because we know the dates for which route should be used, but on TC we mainly know changesets).

Anyway if that is required we can look into that. Else, I would propose to only switch to the new routes - in January we will have 6 months of data - that seems sufficient to me (still archives.m.o would be used when TC builds are not available).

Guys, what do you think ?
I'm ok with TC builds being used, with archive.m.o as a fallback prior to the switchover. We might want to verify that during the switchover, the TC and archive.m.o builds are actually the same build by checking the revision hashes.

(On archive.m.o, the revision hashes are found in a .txt file in their respective dirs.)
(Assignee)

Comment 2

3 years ago
(In reply to Gary Kwong [:gkw] [:nth10sd] from comment #1)
> I'm ok with TC builds being used, with archive.m.o as a fallback prior to
> the switchover. We might want to verify that during the switchover, the TC
> and archive.m.o builds are actually the same build by checking the revision
> hashes.
> 
> (On archive.m.o, the revision hashes are found in a .txt file in their
> respective dirs.)

We already use the txt files for that purpose.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

3 years ago
Created attachment 8700699 [details] [review]
use the new gecko.v2 routes

So, I switched to use the new routes, and added some support for asan and pgo builds.
Assignee: nobody → j.parkouss
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8700699 - Flags: review?(wlachance)
Comment on attachment 8700699 [details] [review]
use the new gecko.v2 routes

Just going to assume this is good. :)
Attachment #8700699 - Flags: review?(wlachance) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 5

3 years ago
Eh.

It works, but we are loosing much.

mozregression -g 2015-06-05 -b 2015-08-09 -B debug

no longer works. Looks like the first debug builds on this route are starting in september... Sigh. Not sure I want to merge this right now.
(Assignee)

Comment 6

2 years ago
Created attachment 8710313 [details] [review]
support gecko.v2 routes

I reworked it - now we use the gecko.v2 routes if the push date of the changeset is superior to september 2015 (starting october 2015). I believe this is a safe date, from my testings everything looks fine.

Also follow up patches adds support for pgo and asan builds (firefox and jsshell) and debug for fennec/fennec-2.3. So this will fix bug 1233900.
Attachment #8700699 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8710313 - Flags: review?(wlachance)
Attachment #8710313 - Flags: review?(wlachance) → review+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.