Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2868373002:
Revert V8 to the version rolled before 6.0.181. (Closed)
DescriptionRevert V8 to the version rolled before 6.0.181.
This version is suspected to cause some webkit_layout_test failures. See crbug for more details.
BUG=720511
TBR=thakis@chromium.org
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2868373002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#470803}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4184757eab3cd7fd4ff3e4b565f325e096bbf97b
Patch Set 1 #Messages
Total messages: 49 (19 generated)
Description was changed from ========== revert v8 to before 6.0.181 BUG= ========== to ========== Revert V8 to the version rolled before 6.0.181. This version is suspected to cause some webkit_layout_test failures. See crbug for more details. BUG=720511 TBR=thakis@chromium.org ==========
apacible@chromium.org changed reviewers: + thakis@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by apacible@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
lgtm I think you'll also have to disable the v8 autoroller at https://v8-roll.appspot.com/ so that it doesn't immediately undo this once it lands.
On 2017/05/10 18:32:59, Nico wrote: > lgtm > > I think you'll also have to disable the v8 autoroller at > https://v8-roll.appspot.com/ so that it doesn't immediately undo this once it > lands. not lgtm. Please don't revert the work of many people and two days for one failing layout test and a P3 bug.
The CQ bit was unchecked by machenbach@chromium.org
On 2017/05/10 18:38:37, Michael Achenbach wrote: > On 2017/05/10 18:32:59, Nico wrote: > > lgtm > > > > I think you'll also have to disable the v8 autoroller at > > https://v8-roll.appspot.com/ so that it doesn't immediately undo this once it > > lands. > > not lgtm. Please don't revert the work of many people and two days for one > failing layout test and a P3 bug. It's just P3 'cause that's the default priority. Chromium's cq is currently completely broken (and has been broken all week due to unrelated issues why we haven't found this until now). This is P0. Please undo your not lgtm.
machenbach@chromium.org changed reviewers: + machenbach@chromium.org
I stopped the CQ for now. If this is really urgent, please assign appropriate priorities to the bug and try to get it triaged. There are some V8 folks in MTV timezone as well... +gdeepti,adamk
thakis@chromium.org changed reviewers: - machenbach@chromium.org
(still lgtm obviously)
On 2017/05/10 18:41:29, Michael Achenbach wrote: > I stopped the CQ for now. If this is really urgent, please assign appropriate > priorities to the bug and try to get it triaged. There are some V8 folks in MTV > timezone as well... > > +gdeepti,adamk Why not disable the test? We've disabled dozens of layout tests before for reasons like this?
It's not one test, but a large-ish, shifting list of tests, see bug On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:42 PM, <machenbach@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2017/05/10 18:41:29, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > I stopped the CQ for now. If this is really urgent, please assign > appropriate > > priorities to the bug and try to get it triaged. There are some V8 folks > in > MTV > > timezone as well... > > > > +gdeepti,adamk > > Why not disable the test? We've disabled dozens of layout tests before for > reasons like this? > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2868373002/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-reviews" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
Is there anything blocked on the roll? What's the problem with reverting? Reverting back to green should always be ok, why the resistance here?
machenbach@chromium.org changed reviewers: + machenbach@chromium.org
Tentative lgtm then. Hope somebody in MTV timezone can resolve this then...
V8 needs regular canary coverage. Now we're reverting to something that's two days old. V8 has webkit and all kinds of extra tests in CQ and there were no signals of anything being wrong.
The CQ bit was checked by machenbach@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
On 2017/05/10 18:43:25, Nico wrote: > It's not one test, but a large-ish, shifting list of tests, see bug Sorry for the confusion. I only looked at this bug http://crbug.com/719837 mentioned in a comment on the original roll CL. The bug liked here is indeed more severe...
win_chromium_rel_ng failure is https://crbug.com/711651 and unrelated. win_chromium_x64_rel_ng might be https://crbug.com/701059 but I'm not sure, so I'm afraid we'll have to wait for another run on that bot (which apparently takes 90+ min to do its thing)
The CQ bit was unchecked by thakis@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by thakis@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
kozyatinskiy@chromium.org changed reviewers: + kozyatinskiy@chromium.org
I'd like to mention here that this roll additionally revert my commit which produce some crashes: https://codereview.chromium.org/2868423004/
The CQ bit was unchecked by kozyatinskiy@chromium.org
It's failing again on window bot, we update lkgr to V8 version with all CLs, V8 tree looks pretty green. We'll try roll latest and will see what happens.
On 2017/05/11 00:42:33, kozy wrote: > It's failing again on window bot, we update lkgr to V8 version with all CLs, V8 > tree looks pretty green. We'll try roll latest and will see what happens. If for any reasons it passes win_chromium_x64_rel_ng bot before new version is rolled then I'll land this CL and restart v8 auto roller.
On 2017/05/11 00:47:07, kozy wrote: > On 2017/05/11 00:42:33, kozy wrote: > > It's failing again on window bot, we update lkgr to V8 version with all CLs, > V8 > > tree looks pretty green. We'll try roll latest and will see what happens. > > If for any reasons it passes win_chromium_x64_rel_ng bot before new version is > rolled then I'll land this CL and restart v8 auto roller. Thanks for keeping an eye out on this.
The CQ bit was checked by kozyatinskiy@chromium.org
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 kozyatinskiy@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by kozyatinskiy@chromium.org
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 kozyatinskiy@chromium.org
The CQ bit was checked by joelhockey@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
Sorry I'm a bit confused... What's the current status?
On 2017/05/11 at 04:05:21, yhirano wrote: > Sorry I'm a bit confused... What's the current status? I have just clicked on commit. I haven't been able to get in contact with apacible, but this CL needs to land asap if it is to fix the webkit_layout_tests in linux_chromium_rel_ng which is stopping any other CLs from landing.
CQ is committing da patch.
Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1494475457873620, "parent_rev":
"0fe371d918bf4d467619c1cd2d9fd9f3ee117add", "commit_rev":
"4184757eab3cd7fd4ff3e4b565f325e096bbf97b"}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Revert V8 to the version rolled before 6.0.181. This version is suspected to cause some webkit_layout_test failures. See crbug for more details. BUG=720511 TBR=thakis@chromium.org ========== to ========== Revert V8 to the version rolled before 6.0.181. This version is suspected to cause some webkit_layout_test failures. See crbug for more details. BUG=720511 TBR=thakis@chromium.org Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2868373002 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#470803} Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4184757eab3cd7fd4ff3e4b565f3... ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4184757eab3cd7fd4ff3e4b565f3...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Since we weren't able to land this revert for 7 hours, we decided to try roll new V8 version which includes all required reverts. And since in any case we need to roll new version, I thought that it would be easier to roll to new version instead of revert first and then roll to new since it will include much more commits and if someone would be broken - it will be hard to detect. Roll passes most of the bots already: https://codereview.chromium.org/2874953002/ And sorry, I was commuting and next time will put my plans into CL. Then let's see how roll to new V8 version will go through. Thanks!
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/05/11 04:35:23, kozy wrote: > Since we weren't able to land this revert for 7 hours, we decided to try roll > new V8 version which includes all required reverts. And since in any case we > need to roll new version, I thought that it would be easier to roll to new > version instead of revert first and then roll to new since it will include much > more commits and if someone would be broken - it will be hard to detect. > Roll passes most of the bots already: > https://codereview.chromium.org/2874953002/ > And sorry, I was commuting and next time will put my plans into CL. > > Then let's see how roll to new V8 version will go through. > Thanks! Looks like the revert landed file a while ago and did cure the cq, while the autoroller so far hasn't managed to land any rolls.
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/05/11 13:36:47, Nico wrote: > On 2017/05/11 04:35:23, kozy wrote: > > Since we weren't able to land this revert for 7 hours, we decided to try roll > > new V8 version which includes all required reverts. And since in any case we > > need to roll new version, I thought that it would be easier to roll to new > > version instead of revert first and then roll to new since it will include > much > > more commits and if someone would be broken - it will be hard to detect. > > Roll passes most of the bots already: > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2874953002/ > > And sorry, I was commuting and next time will put my plans into CL. > > > > Then let's see how roll to new V8 version will go through. > > Thanks! > > Looks like the revert landed file a while ago and did cure the cq, while the > autoroller so far hasn't managed to land any rolls. cq looks good, but auto-roller has also rolled again several times beyond the supposed V8 side fix. Looks like things stayed green...
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/05/11 13:45:58, Michael Achenbach wrote: > On 2017/05/11 13:36:47, Nico wrote: > > On 2017/05/11 04:35:23, kozy wrote: > > > Since we weren't able to land this revert for 7 hours, we decided to try > roll > > > new V8 version which includes all required reverts. And since in any case we > > > need to roll new version, I thought that it would be easier to roll to new > > > version instead of revert first and then roll to new since it will include > > much > > > more commits and if someone would be broken - it will be hard to detect. > > > Roll passes most of the bots already: > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2874953002/ > > > And sorry, I was commuting and next time will put my plans into CL. > > > > > > Then let's see how roll to new V8 version will go through. > > > Thanks! > > > > Looks like the revert landed file a while ago and did cure the cq, while the > > autoroller so far hasn't managed to land any rolls. > > cq looks good, but auto-roller has also rolled again several times beyond the > supposed V8 side fix. Looks like things stayed green... e.g. see last two rolls: https://codereview.chromium.org/user/v8-autoroll
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:46 AM, <machenbach@chromium.org> wrote: > On 2017/05/11 13:45:58, Michael Achenbach wrote: > > On 2017/05/11 13:36:47, Nico wrote: > > > On 2017/05/11 04:35:23, kozy wrote: > > > > Since we weren't able to land this revert for 7 hours, we decided to > try > > roll > > > > new V8 version which includes all required reverts. And since in any > case > we > > > > need to roll new version, I thought that it would be easier to roll > to new > > > > version instead of revert first and then roll to new since it will > include > > > much > > > > more commits and if someone would be broken - it will be hard to > detect. > > > > Roll passes most of the bots already: > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2874953002/ > > > > And sorry, I was commuting and next time will put my plans into CL. > > > > > > > > Then let's see how roll to new V8 version will go through. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Looks like the revert landed file a while ago and did cure the cq, > while the > > > autoroller so far hasn't managed to land any rolls. > > > > cq looks good, but auto-roller has also rolled again several times > beyond the > > supposed V8 side fix. Looks like things stayed green... > > e.g. see last two rolls: > https://codereview.chromium.org/user/v8-autoroll > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2868373002/ > Looks like it's flaky again: https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium... https://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium... I guess we'll revert those rolls again? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-reviews" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org. |
