384626 - Branch tinderbox client scripts and tell the non-trunk tinderboxes to use the branch

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Release Engineering :: General, defect)

Description

[Benjamin Smedberg]

As discussed a while back, I'd like to branch the tinderbox client scripts. This means I can do the minimal hacking necessary for a trunk FF+XR tinderbox without worrying about breaking the branches.

I believe the plan is:

1) branch the tinderbox client scripts to MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH
2) update the non-trunk tinderboxes to update from that branch using TBOX_CLIENT_CVS_TAG (see http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/tools/tinderbox/multi-tinderbox.pl#90)

There is one nagging question about #2: do multi-tinderboxes that are building trunk and branch share their tinderbox client scripts?

I can do #1 with preed's approval. I can't do #2. From Build:Farm, I believe the list of Mofo tinderboxes that would need updating is:

Windows:
bl-bldxp01 (Fx-Mozilla1.8)
cerberus (Fx-Mozilla1.8-l10n, Fx-Mozilla1.8-l10n-release, Tb-Mozilla1.8-l10n)
moz180-win32-tbox (all)
pacifica-vm (all)
patrocles (all)
solaria (all)
tb180-win32-tbox (all)

Mac:
xserve02 (all)
xserve04 (all)
xserve05 (Fx-Mozilla1.8-l10n, Fx-Mozilla1.8-l10n-release, Tb-Mozilla1.8-l10n)
xserve07 (Sunbird-Mozilla1.8)

Linux:
argo (all except XR-trunk)
balsa-18branch (all)
bl-bldlnx01 (Fx-Mozilla1.8 Perf Testing)
crazyhorse (all except Fx-Trunk-FS)
karma (Fx-Mozilla1.8-l10n, Fx-Mozilla1.8-l10n-Release, Tb-Mozilla1.8-l10n)
lt18-linux-tbox (all)
moz180-linux-tbox (all)
prometheus-vm (all)

Comment 1

[J. Paul Reed [:preed]]

My only issue with this plan is that it basically requires everyone (including us) to bear the cost of moving machines over to the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH/knowing to pull that branch instead of trunk, which from what I can tell, has always been the case.

I'm also wondering with the filing of bug 384943 (and the fact that there's some movement on it) if it wouldn't be better to actually do this work on a branch in tinderbox, with the expressed intent that it won't ever get merged back, and that it will get ported to whatever that bug becomes.

Admittedly, this is pretty much backwards of what I'd normally recommend, but I think it'll work OK in this case.

Does that work for you, Benjamin, or is it too bass ackwards? :-)

Comment 2

[J. Paul Reed [:preed]]

Oh, one other issue I don't like which I forgot to mention is that we'd also need to resolve bug 347947, so the trunk tinderboxen can still keep building before this work is done.

What I'd be worried about is we'd get into a situation where we'd need to take a fix for those tinderboxen, but couldn't, because HEAD is in an unstable/unknown state.

So the more I think about this, the more I think it would be better to do this work off on a branch.

TINDERBOX_bsmedberg_playground_BRANCH? Or TINDERBOX_fx-xr_BRANCH?

Open to suggestions...

Comment 3

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Well... what I want is the ability to attempt in the next four weeks to get FF+xr shipping. It seemed like doing that while maintaining branch-compatibility would be difficult.

I'm not sure what the scope/timeline of bug 384943 is. I'm happy to do the ff+xr work on a branch that's only for ff+xr, if that seems easier (it seems easier to me, but you seemed opposed to it earlier).

Comment 4

[J. Paul Reed [:preed]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm not sure what the scope/timeline of bug 384943 is. I'm happy to do the
> ff+xr work on a branch that's only for ff+xr, if that seems easier (it seems
> easier to me, but you seemed opposed to it earlier).

I did?

I think maybe what I was worried about was back when ff+xr was an Fx3 requirement, but now that that's a little more murky, I think we need to have a backup plan. But you make a good point, because then we have to figure out what to do if we ship on that, and then we'll have to branch and merge back or do something equally funky.

Hrm... well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it; I think right now, the safest thing is to branch, and do the fx+xr work there. If I was antsy about it before, then I'm not now! :-)

Let us know if you'd like us to setup a tinderbox that's pulling this specific branch (or maybe move the Win32 ff+xr one to that branch).

Comment 5

[Benjamin Smedberg]

ok, WONTFIX for the moment and we'll think about this more at crunch-time