Closed
Bug 661267
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
teach comm-central client.py to TinderboxPrint revisions
Categories
(Thunderbird :: Build Config, defect)
Thunderbird
Build Config
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: gozer, Unassigned)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
2.68 KB,
patch
|
standard8
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Trying to get rid of another buildbot difference between mozilla-central and comm-central builds. Printing TinderboxPrint: lines so tinderbox can have links to the various revisions we built from. Right now, this patch adds a new --tinderbox-print option to client.py (defaults to false) that results in client.py itself printing the correct TinderboxPrint: lines for the revisions of each included repo in the checkout.
Attachment #536640 -
Flags: review?(mbanner)
Attachment #536640 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
A better version that defaults to the value of env['TINDERBOX_OUTPUT'], which buildbot sets conveniently for us.
Attachment #536640 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #536640 -
Flags: review?(mbanner)
Attachment #536640 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Attachment #536676 -
Flags: review?(mbanner)
Attachment #536676 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 536676 [details] [diff] [review] client.py --tinderbox-print v2 This looks good to me, though please let Callek take a look as well. My only thought is you might want to tinderbox print the comm-central revision as well (except when skipping pulling that repo) as then it is consistent with what --tinderbox-print does across other repos.
Attachment #536676 -
Flags: review?(mbanner) → review+
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #1) > Created attachment 536676 [details] [diff] [review] [review] > client.py --tinderbox-print v2 > > A better version that defaults to the value of env['TINDERBOX_OUTPUT'], > which buildbot sets conveniently for us. My largest concern for doing that is the fact that we'll suddenly start printing many times for this in the case where we have current buildbot code doing this for us. (In reply to comment #2) > Comment on attachment 536676 [details] [diff] [review] [review] > client.py --tinderbox-print v2 > > This looks good to me, though please let Callek take a look as well. > > My only thought is you might want to tinderbox print the comm-central > revision as well (except when skipping pulling that repo) as then it is > consistent with what --tinderbox-print does across other repos. Sounds like a good idea, however it also has the side-effect of printing this twice in many cases. I'd rather chat with you on IRC when I'm not in over my head with release-work, lets try and set up a brief convo next week sometime (sorry for the delay in reviews). The concept is ok, but I am relatively hesitant to do work in src tree that is strictly for our automation/buildbot and not even useful to local developers.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > Comment on attachment 536676 [details] [diff] [review] [review] > client.py --tinderbox-print v2 > > This looks good to me, though please let Callek take a look as well. > > My only thought is you might want to tinderbox print the comm-central > revision as well (except when skipping pulling that repo) as then it is > consistent with what --tinderbox-print does across other repos. Yes, but the reason I went that way is that buildbot already handles the tinderboxprint: for the top-level repo, so it would be doubled.
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
changeset: 7979:91d67ba9a6b5 tag: tip user: Philippe M. Chiasson <gozer@mozillamessaging.com> date: Mon Jun 20 15:40:02 2011 -0400 summary: Bug 661267 - Add --tinderbox-print to client.py to output hg revision links for buildbot. r=Standard8
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 536676 [details] [diff] [review] client.py --tinderbox-print v2 Callek, if you still want to discuss this please do, but I don't think we need the open review request now.
Attachment #536676 -
Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•