Thanks

[Ryan Hamilton]

Howdy Folks,

I was a Chrome sheriff for the first time in a while yesterday. Between sheriff-o-matic, changes to the tree closure policy, fewer flaky tests, a much more reliable CQ, and probably a few other things I'm not aware of... it was REMARKABLY easier! I wouldn't say that I *enjoyed* being a sheriff but I totally didn't mind. :> I've also noticed recently that any time I commit via the CQ (or am a reviewer on a change which is committed via the CQ) the change lands quickly and never generates spurious failure messages.

All in all, my world is so much better as a result of all the work y'all have done recently. Thank you very much!

Cheers,

Ryan 

[Julie Parent]

Thanks Ryan!

Your words mean a lot; the Code Yellow has drawn on much longer than we were intended, but I'm really happy to hear that it has had its intended effect.  We also welcome any constructive criticism you have, particularly with sheriff-o-matic, as it is a new tool, and we still trying to determine the best workflows.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium Hackability Code Yellow" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackability-c...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to hackabi...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CAJ_4DfRC9cZNi7DevpbVYBu3vPHcpFHoGuqAuOB55Z2fVKyBoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ojan Vafai]

\o/

I've heard a similar sentiment from a number of sheriffs recently. It's really heartwarming to see hard work pay off.

I wonder if it's time to consider having fewer sheriffs. If it's getting easier to sheriff, maybe we don't need to devote so many full time folks to it every day. Ideally, we'd get to a point where the tools were so amazing that we needed <1 person sheriffing at any given time.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CAPSmAAR_fvgLjgrXbCv9ej0AWR-HOtptTpnmS3wv3GyO2qamBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Abd-El-Malek]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ojan Vafai <oj...@chromium.org> wrote:

\o/

I've heard a similar sentiment from a number of sheriffs recently. It's really heartwarming to see hard work pay off.

I wonder if it's time to consider having fewer sheriffs. If it's getting easier to sheriff, maybe we don't need to devote so many full time folks to it every day. Ideally, we'd get to a point where the tools were so amazing that we needed <1 person sheriffing at any given time.

+1, I've unsuccessfully tried to push for this. Having many people voice this would be helpful.

At the very least, we can change to have only one in MTV instead of two. There's already one from EST.

On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 10:45:39 AM Julie Parent <jpa...@chromium.org> wrote:

Thanks Ryan!

Your words mean a lot; the Code Yellow has drawn on much longer than we were intended, but I'm really happy to hear that it has had its intended effect.  We also welcome any constructive criticism you have, particularly with sheriff-o-matic, as it is a new tool, and we still trying to determine the best workflows.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Ryan Hamilton <r...@chromium.org> wrote:

Howdy Folks,

I was a Chrome sheriff for the first time in a while yesterday. Between sheriff-o-matic, changes to the tree closure policy, fewer flaky tests, a much more reliable CQ, and probably a few other things I'm not aware of... it was REMARKABLY easier! I wouldn't say that I *enjoyed* being a sheriff but I totally didn't mind. :> I've also noticed recently that any time I commit via the CQ (or am a reviewer on a change which is committed via the CQ) the change lands quickly and never generates spurious failure messages.

All in all, my world is so much better as a result of all the work y'all have done recently. Thank you very much!

Cheers,

Ryan 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium Hackability Code Yellow" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackability-c...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to hackabi...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CAJ_4DfRC9cZNi7DevpbVYBu3vPHcpFHoGuqAuOB55Z2fVKyBoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium Hackability Code Yellow" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackability-c...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to hackabi...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CAPSmAAR_fvgLjgrXbCv9ej0AWR-HOtptTpnmS3wv3GyO2qamBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium Hackability Code Yellow" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hackability-c...@chromium.org.
To post to this group, send email to hackabi...@chromium.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CANMdWTuA3hWFYcO2Gty6%2BWCDMjzjpLMQ0h1bK4VdCDd0xicdjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ken Rockot]

+1 to the gratitude expressed by Ryan.

+1 to slimming down to single-sheriff rotations.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CALhVsw1NWhG-sjkLxpCpj0nzY-dJPAncTaQZbM%3DmR_JckJsfRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ojan Vafai]

On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 2:48:39 PM Ken Rockot <roc...@chromium.org> wrote:

+1 to the gratitude expressed by Ryan.

+1 to slimming down to single-sheriff rotations.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:41 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <j...@chromium.org> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ojan Vafai <oj...@chromium.org> wrote:

\o/

I've heard a similar sentiment from a number of sheriffs recently. It's really heartwarming to see hard work pay off.

I wonder if it's time to consider having fewer sheriffs. If it's getting easier to sheriff, maybe we don't need to devote so many full time folks to it every day. Ideally, we'd get to a point where the tools were so amazing that we needed <1 person sheriffing at any given time.

+1, I've unsuccessfully tried to push for this. Having many people voice this would be helpful.

Is there a thread to chime in on? I'm happy to do so, although I feel I don't have much of a vote since I'm no longer active in Chromium.

 

At the very least, we can change to have only one in MTV instead of two. There's already one from EST.

+1. At this point, having two sheriff's at the same time seems a bit excessive to me.

[John Abd-El-Malek]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Ojan Vafai <oj...@chromium.org> wrote:

On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 2:48:39 PM Ken Rockot <roc...@chromium.org> wrote:

+1 to the gratitude expressed by Ryan.

+1 to slimming down to single-sheriff rotations.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:41 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <j...@chromium.org> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ojan Vafai <oj...@chromium.org> wrote:

\o/

I've heard a similar sentiment from a number of sheriffs recently. It's really heartwarming to see hard work pay off.

I wonder if it's time to consider having fewer sheriffs. If it's getting easier to sheriff, maybe we don't need to devote so many full time folks to it every day. Ideally, we'd get to a point where the tools were so amazing that we needed <1 person sheriffing at any given time.

+1, I've unsuccessfully tried to push for this. Having many people voice this would be helpful.

Is there a thread to chime in on? I'm happy to do so, although I feel I don't have much of a vote since I'm no longer active in Chromium.

added you, thanks for helping to bring this up 

 

 

At the very least, we can change to have only one in MTV instead of two. There's already one from EST.

+1. At this point, having two sheriff's at the same time seems a bit excessive to me.

it's worse, there are 2 PST and 1 EST for most of the time...

[Anantha Keesara]

Now that the Chromium sheriffing experience has become better, how about we make perf sheriffing part of chromium sheriffing? This way we do not need to have a separate perf sheriffing rotation. 

Annie/Ryan/Tony and others , What do you think?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CALhVsw1JJEfC9joCmy06Gf%2B4p%3DuxoFjqW0z7g6exsZOFRRacQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rachel Blum]

+1 to single-sheriff rotations. Maybe we can staff up the Memory Sheriff ranks a bit, then :) (Unless your awesome magic is planned to spread there, too?)

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ojan Vafai <oj...@chromium.org> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/hackability-cy/CANMdWTuA3hWFYcO2Gty6%2BWCDMjzjpLMQ0h1bK4VdCDd0xicdjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Abd-El-Malek]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Anantha Keesara <ana...@chromium.org> wrote:

Now that the Chromium sheriffing experience has become better, how about we make perf sheriffing part of chromium sheriffing? This way we do not need to have a separate perf sheriffing rotation. 

Annie/Ryan/Tony and others , What do you think?

Most chromium devs aren't familiar with the perf sheriffing duties.

IMO going from 3 sheriffs across PST/EST to 1, and also asking them to sheriff perf waterfall, is too much of a jump.