9front-amd64 builder?

[o...@eigenstate.org]

Hi,

Currently, the 9front builder passes most tests, though there
are a couple that flake occasionally. I'm (fooling people into)
looking at them, so hopefully we get fixes in.

But given that most tests pass most of the time -- should we get
a builder set up?

What's the preferred setup? It seems that an ephemeral GCP builder
is preferred, and 9front does boot and owrk out of the box on GCP,
so this shouldn't be a problem.

(I remember that there was documentation on setting up a builder,
but all my google searches find tutorials on implementing the builder
pattenr in Go -- so feel free to drop a link and tell me to RFFM)

[Heschi Kreinick]

Yeah, a GCP builder is preferred. Historically, you would provide a script in https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/build/+/master:env/ to build the image, and someone from the Go team with permissions to create the image would run it. Then you'd send a CL to https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/build/+/master:dashboard/builders.go adding a host type and builder using that image. That's still an option.

However, that creates a maintenance burden on the Go team, and https://go.dev/issue/53383 reflects our desire to empower port maintainers to take responsibility for their own ports. I think it would be good if port maintainers controlled their own builder images, but that requires us to figure out security and process concerns. I'm not sure when we'll make that possible.

So: if this is very important for some reason, you can send us CLs and we'll build the image when we get a chance. Otherwise, please check back in a few months and maybe we'll have improved the processes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-dev/9E2E91728DFD963327DF7270F2B5E169%40eigenstate.org.

[o...@eigenstate.org]

Quoth Heschi Kreinick <hes...@google.com>:

> Yeah, a GCP builder is preferred. Historically, you would provide a script
> in https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/build/+/master:env/ to build the
> image, and someone from the Go team with permissions to create the image
> would run it. Then you'd send a CL to
> https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/build/+/master:dashboard/builders.go
> adding a host type and builder using that image. That's still an option.
>
> However, that creates a maintenance burden on the Go team, and
> https://go.dev/issue/53383 reflects our desire to empower port maintainers
> to take responsibility for their own ports. I think it would be good if
> port maintainers controlled their own builder images, but that requires us
> to figure out security and process concerns. I'm not sure when we'll make
> that possible.
>
> So: if this is very important for some reason, you can send us CLs and
> we'll build the image when we get a chance. Otherwise, please check back in
> a few months and maybe we'll have improved the processes.

While it's not incredibly urgent, it'd be nice to wait fewer than a few
months. At the same time, I agree that it would be nice if I could update
the images myself, since it'd be good to keep us up with the most recent
commits in 9front -- we seem to average one or two a day, so in an ideal
world, we'd be running off a nightly build. Getting that automated is a
bit down the road, though.

I'm also happy to run an instance *outside* of gcp until the process gets
sorted out, if that's easier?

[o...@eigenstate.org]

Quoth 'Heschi Kreinick' via golang-dev <golan...@googlegroups.com>:

> Yeah, a GCP builder is preferred. Historically, you would provide a script
> in https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/build/+/master:env/ to build the
> image, and someone from the Go team with permissions to create the image
> would run it. Then you'd send a CL to
> https://cs.opensource.google/go/x/build/+/master:dashboard/builders.go
> adding a host type and builder using that image. That's still an option.
>
> However, that creates a maintenance burden on the Go team, and
> https://go.dev/issue/53383 reflects our desire to empower port maintainers
> to take responsibility for their own ports. I think it would be good if
> port maintainers controlled their own builder images, but that requires us
> to figure out security and process concerns. I'm not sure when we'll make
> that possible.
>
> So: if this is very important for some reason, you can send us CLs and
> we'll build the image when we get a chance. Otherwise, please check back in
> a few months and maybe we'll have improved the processes.

it's been a few months; pinging this·

[Cherry Mui]

Sorry for the delay. I've sent you a builder key off-list.

You could follow https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/DashboardBuilders#how-to-set-up-a-builder to set up the builder.

Thanks!

Cherry