On Thu 13 Feb 2014 03:03:23 PM PST, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 01:31:55PM -0800, Gary Kwong wrote:
>> On 2/13/14, 12:18 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
>>> Sounds like the sticking point is finding someone who will agree to
>>> keep them alive. There's no point in turning them on if they're going
>>> to be broken for weeks/months at a stretch.
>> This can be mitigated as per Valgrind by having per-commit builds as
>> well as the build running on all important branches (fx-team,
>> inbound, try, etc.) Sheriffs can back out changes which break the
>> shell build.
>>> From skimming the discussion, one thing that's unclear to me is if
>>> we're talking about Windows shell builds, or Windows shell builds with
>>> warnings-as-errors. I would guess the latter is what causes most of the
>>> maintenance overhead?
>> I at least would like the former.
So I think the decision should be about getting a warnings-as-warnings
shell build, since that seems easier to achieve. How much easier; I'm
not sure. I'm one of those obnoxious js devs who has never helped fix
the windows builds. I seem to recall Waldo struggling to get the
windows shell builds back alive not too long ago; I had the impression
that was just to get it building, not warning-free.
>> I suspect some folks would like the latter (warnings-as-errors), but
>> that's up for discussion because there's also differing viewpoints.
>> This could be a separate discussion.
> Also note that in an ideal world, there would also be mac shell builds.
I *think* those were gated on switching to tooltool. Which I could
probably do now without too much trouble, after having fought through
it for the hazards build. Sadly, those are done with completely
separate scripts. (build/tools shell script vs mozharness script).