Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2420053002:
Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config (Closed)
|
Created:
4 years, 2 months ago by jochen (gone - plz use gerrit) Modified:
4 years, 1 month ago CC:
v8-reviews_googlegroups.com, rmcilroy Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master Project:
v8 Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionDefine a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config
That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact
configuration changes.
R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org
BUG=
Committed: https://crrev.com/04219241320701f94876b27fafa38adc35e60cb9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#40944}
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 1
Patch Set 2 : no harmony #Patch Set 3 : updates #Messages
Total messages: 27 (16 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by jochen@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...
wdyt? A flag that doesn't have a particular feature name in it would allow for putting this once into the config of our tests and keeping it there
Great idea, have one comment on --es-staging though. https://codereview.chromium.org/2420053002/diff/1/src/flag-definitions.h File src/flag-definitions.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2420053002/diff/1/src/flag-definitions.h#newc... src/flag-definitions.h:262: DEFINE_IMPLICATION(future, es_staging) I am hesitant on this one. The performance bar for new language features is much lower than for our pipelines. I think this flag even only is used for activating the features on Clusterfuzz. --harmony-staging are the features which one can enable via about:flags AFAIK. Language features should be added one at a time to this configuration, not in bulk.
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
lgtm
I'm ok with taking out es_staging (or other language feature flags). I agree that there's also a need to explicitly test individual features like ignition-staging, but for teams that don't directly work on that feature, they just want to make sure to optimize for whatever comes up next
The CQ bit was checked by jochen@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...
On 2016/10/14 08:52:16, jochen wrote: > I'm ok with taking out es_staging (or other language feature flags). > > I agree that there's also a need to explicitly test individual features like > ignition-staging, but for teams that don't directly work on that feature, they > just want to make sure to optimize for whatever comes up next lgtm
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
btw, is --ignition-staging --turbo the right config, or would it be --ignition --turbo?
The CQ bit was checked by jochen@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from mvstanton@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2420053002/#ps20001 (title: "no harmony")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
The CQ bit was unchecked by jochen@chromium.org
Description was changed from ========== Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact configuration changes. R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org BUG= ========== to ========== Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact configuration changes. R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org BUG= ==========
The CQ bit was checked by jochen@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from mvstanton@chromium.org, hablich@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2420053002/#ps40001 (title: "updates")
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.
Description was changed from ========== Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact configuration changes. R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org BUG= ========== to ========== Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact configuration changes. R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org BUG= ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact configuration changes. R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org BUG= ========== to ========== Define a flag --future to enable the most probable future shipping config That way we don't have to update the perf tests whenever the exact configuration changes. R=mvstanton@chromium.org,hablich@chromium.org,danno@chromium.org BUG= Committed: https://crrev.com/04219241320701f94876b27fafa38adc35e60cb9 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#40944} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/04219241320701f94876b27fafa38adc35e60cb9 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#40944} |
