Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2335193004:
Swarm Site Isolation FYI waterfall. (Closed)
DescriptionSwarm Site Isolation FYI waterfall.
BUG=646509
Committed: https://crrev.com/57d293166dcd776203e2efbbdc53f2cb7c6375af
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#418445}
Patch Set 1 #
Messages
Total messages: 17 (7 generated)
jam@chromium.org changed reviewers: + nasko@chromium.org
This will also swarm the trybots.
The CQ bit was checked by jam@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
nasko@chromium.org changed reviewers: + alexmos@chromium.org
Hey Alex, You are the master of the build configs. Can you do the honors of reviewing this one? Thanks in advance! Nasko
LGTM, thanks for doing this. The only concern I have is (longstanding) issue 587527. If my theory is correct in https://crbug.com/587527#2, enabling swarming would break the retry-without-patch step on our bots, and so linux_site_isolation would be blocking the CQ any time it's red for an unrelated reason (it reuses the "Site Isolation Linux" config). We can still do this if you think that's not a big problem (our Linux bots in particular have been green pretty consistently). We can also try pushing someone to fix 587527, though I haven't been successful at that in the past.
On 2016/09/13 20:55:38, alexmos wrote: > LGTM, thanks for doing this. The only concern I have is (longstanding) issue > 587527. If my theory is correct in https://crbug.com/587527#2, enabling > swarming would break the retry-without-patch step on our bots, and so > linux_site_isolation would be blocking the CQ any time it's red for an unrelated > reason (it reuses the "Site Isolation Linux" config). We can still do this if > you think that's not a big problem (our Linux bots in particular have been > green pretty consistently). We can also try pushing someone to fix 587527, > though I haven't been successful at that in the past. Oh, and also let's run a linux_site_isolation tryjob as a sanity check on this, just to make sure it still works. :)
The CQ bit was unchecked by jam@chromium.org
On 2016/09/13 20:56:50, alexmos wrote: > On 2016/09/13 20:55:38, alexmos wrote: > > LGTM, thanks for doing this. The only concern I have is (longstanding) issue > > 587527. If my theory is correct in https://crbug.com/587527#2, enabling > > swarming would break the retry-without-patch step on our bots, and so > > linux_site_isolation would be blocking the CQ any time it's red for an > unrelated > > reason (it reuses the "Site Isolation Linux" config). We can still do this if > > you think that's not a big problem (our Linux bots in particular have been > > green pretty consistently). We can also try pushing someone to fix 587527, > > though I haven't been successful at that in the past. > > Oh, and also let's run a linux_site_isolation tryjob as a sanity check on this, > just to make sure it still works. :) Good idea, thanks done.
On 2016/09/13 20:55:38, alexmos wrote: > LGTM, thanks for doing this. The only concern I have is (longstanding) issue > 587527. If my theory is correct in https://crbug.com/587527#2, enabling > swarming would break the retry-without-patch step on our bots, and so > linux_site_isolation would be blocking the CQ any time it's red for an unrelated > reason (it reuses the "Site Isolation Linux" config). We can still do this if > you think that's not a big problem (our Linux bots in particular have been > green pretty consistently). We can also try pushing someone to fix 587527, > though I haven't been successful at that in the past. Thanks for the pointer. I agree this is a blocker. I read the bug and I think for now the best thing is your solution in comment 2, it should be trivial to do. I'll send a patch.
On 2016/09/13 21:12:46, jam wrote: > On 2016/09/13 20:55:38, alexmos wrote: > > LGTM, thanks for doing this. The only concern I have is (longstanding) issue > > 587527. If my theory is correct in https://crbug.com/587527#2, enabling > > swarming would break the retry-without-patch step on our bots, and so > > linux_site_isolation would be blocking the CQ any time it's red for an > unrelated > > reason (it reuses the "Site Isolation Linux" config). We can still do this if > > you think that's not a big problem (our Linux bots in particular have been > > green pretty consistently). We can also try pushing someone to fix 587527, > > though I haven't been successful at that in the past. > > Thanks for the pointer. I agree this is a blocker. I read the bug and I think > for now the best thing is your solution in comment 2, it should be trivial to > do. I'll send a patch. (fix landed in https://codereview.chromium.org/2335333003/)
The CQ bit was checked by jam@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #1 (id:1)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Swarm Site Isolation FYI waterfall. BUG=646509 ========== to ========== Swarm Site Isolation FYI waterfall. BUG=646509 Committed: https://crrev.com/57d293166dcd776203e2efbbdc53f2cb7c6375af Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#418445} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/57d293166dcd776203e2efbbdc53f2cb7c6375af Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#418445} |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
