From shade at redhat.com Tue Oct 2 09:48:39 2018 From: shade at redhat.com (Aleksey Shipilev) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:48:39 +0200 Subject: Mercurial clonebundles for hg.openjdk.java.net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/26/2018 10:11 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > This might not be under the umbrella of Skara project, and it may be irrelevant if/when we migrate > to Git, but can we repeat what Mozilla does for their monorepo and enable clonebundles [1] on > hg.openjdk.java.net, at least on busy repositories? No response. Another attempt, submitted it as infrastructure RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211383 Not sure which subcomponent it should go to, left that one blank. -Aleksey From joe.darcy at oracle.com Tue Oct 2 23:19:24 2018 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (Joseph D. Darcy) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:19:24 -0700 Subject: Mercurial clonebundles for hg.openjdk.java.net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BB3FCFC.4080706@oracle.com> Hi Aleksey, We're focusing Skara efforts on git work. Cheers, -Joe On 10/2/2018 2:48 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 09/26/2018 10:11 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> This might not be under the umbrella of Skara project, and it may be irrelevant if/when we migrate >> to Git, but can we repeat what Mozilla does for their monorepo and enable clonebundles [1] on >> hg.openjdk.java.net, at least on busy repositories? > No response. Another attempt, submitted it as infrastructure RFE: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211383 > > Not sure which subcomponent it should go to, left that one blank. > > -Aleksey > > From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Tue Oct 2 23:32:05 2018 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:32:05 -0700 Subject: Mercurial clonebundles for hg.openjdk.java.net In-Reply-To: <5BB3FCFC.4080706@oracle.com> References: <5BB3FCFC.4080706@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20181002163205.778937021@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2018/10/2 16:19:24 -0700, joe.darcy at oracle.com: > We're focusing Skara efforts on git work. To add a little more detail ... The version of Mercurial on hg.openjdk.java.net is old, and it doesn?t support the clonebundles extension, so we?d have to upgrade that. We?d have to revise the code that manages the repos to take clonebundles into account when configuring a repository. Finally, we?d have to figure out where to stash the bundles; Oracle has a CDN that we could probably use (the same one that hosts downloads for jdk.java.net), but dealing with it is, sadly, pretty awkward. My take: It?s not worth distracting the work on Skara for this. - Mark From shade at redhat.com Wed Oct 3 10:40:59 2018 From: shade at redhat.com (Aleksey Shipilev) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:40:59 +0200 Subject: Mercurial clonebundles for hg.openjdk.java.net In-Reply-To: <20181002163205.778937021@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <5BB3FCFC.4080706@oracle.com> <20181002163205.778937021@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <3d2b3ea6-8ff2-02ce-45bf-70b84d4ff379@redhat.com> On 10/03/2018 01:32 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2018/10/2 16:19:24 -0700, joe.darcy at oracle.com: >> We're focusing Skara efforts on git work. > > To add a little more detail ... > > The version of Mercurial on hg.openjdk.java.net is old, and it doesn?t > support the clonebundles extension, so we?d have to upgrade that. We?d > have to revise the code that manages the repos to take clonebundles into > account when configuring a repository. Finally, we?d have to figure out > where to stash the bundles; Oracle has a CDN that we could probably use > (the same one that hosts downloads for jdk.java.net), but dealing with > it is, sadly, pretty awkward. Yes, it requires work. In my experience, most solutions require work :) My point, expanded below, is that work is desperately needed right now, without waiting for Skara to move forward and complete. Actually, I think enabling clonebundles would be an excellent first step under Skara, and would be well within its intent to improve developers' experience. > My take: It?s not worth distracting the work on Skara for this. I appreciate the hard work for moving to Git, but I think the decision to hold off clonebundles because of Git work is ill-advised. It would make perfect sense if we were to choose where to go from tolerable status quo to one of two better solutions, but the reality begs to differ: we are not in the tolerable status quo. For example, last night the CI job that checks out and builds fresh jdk-updates/jdk11u had restarted five (!) times, all four attempts timing out after half an hour checkout from hg.openjdk.java.net, connection terminated by remote hg. Granted, I can workaround this for myself and my team by pointing to tarballs at https://builds.shipilev.net/workspaces/ -- but that is not the solution that fits everyone, or that most people in OpenJDK development know. The traffic to that tarball storage also indicates people actively search how to alleviate their problems with current hg.o.j.n. The more worrying observation is that some disgruntled developers suggest (alas, privately to me, after discovering the tarballs) that Oracle cannot be serious about OpenJDK if Oracle-sponsored infrastructure is infuriatingly slow. Of course, we know that is a conspiracy theory, but we can see the forest behind the trees here: bad developer experience transforms into bad optics, which kneecaps our shared OpenJDK story. I have to pessimistically assume that for each developer who tell me they are disappointed, there are tens who never receive any hand-holding to ease off their first and bad experience with OpenJDK. To add to this, it seemed to me that Skara project goals were to prototype and see what SCM configurations may be better than status quo. Here is my take: clonebundles seem to work, and they make a good stop-gap measure without intrusive changes to the rest of infrastructure and ecosystem. It looks to me the time and effort required to enable clonebundles is understood much better and poses much less work than transition to Git. Bottom-line: the best is the enemy of the good. Please reconsider. -Aleksey From anthonyv.be at outlook.com Wed Oct 3 18:58:25 2018 From: anthonyv.be at outlook.com (Anthony Vanelverdinghe) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:58:25 +0000 Subject: Mercurial clonebundles for hg.openjdk.java.net In-Reply-To: <3d2b3ea6-8ff2-02ce-45bf-70b84d4ff379@redhat.com> References: <5BB3FCFC.4080706@oracle.com> <20181002163205.778937021@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <3d2b3ea6-8ff2-02ce-45bf-70b84d4ff379@redhat.com> Message-ID: For your information, Mercurial has ?pullbundles? since version 4.6 [1], which seems to be the successor of clonebundles. Kind regards, Anthony [1] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/WhatsNew#Mercurial_4.6_.282018-05-06.29 ________________________________ From: skara-dev on behalf of Aleksey Shipilev Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:40:59 PM To: mark.reinhold at oracle.com; joe.darcy at oracle.com Cc: skara-dev at openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Mercurial clonebundles for hg.openjdk.java.net On 10/03/2018 01:32 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2018/10/2 16:19:24 -0700, joe.darcy at oracle.com: >> We're focusing Skara efforts on git work. > > To add a little more detail ... > > The version of Mercurial on hg.openjdk.java.net is old, and it doesn?t > support the clonebundles extension, so we?d have to upgrade that. We?d > have to revise the code that manages the repos to take clonebundles into > account when configuring a repository. Finally, we?d have to figure out > where to stash the bundles; Oracle has a CDN that we could probably use > (the same one that hosts downloads for jdk.java.net), but dealing with > it is, sadly, pretty awkward. Yes, it requires work. In my experience, most solutions require work :) My point, expanded below, is that work is desperately needed right now, without waiting for Skara to move forward and complete. Actually, I think enabling clonebundles would be an excellent first step under Skara, and would be well within its intent to improve developers' experience. > My take: It?s not worth distracting the work on Skara for this. I appreciate the hard work for moving to Git, but I think the decision to hold off clonebundles because of Git work is ill-advised. It would make perfect sense if we were to choose where to go from tolerable status quo to one of two better solutions, but the reality begs to differ: we are not in the tolerable status quo. For example, last night the CI job that checks out and builds fresh jdk-updates/jdk11u had restarted five (!) times, all four attempts timing out after half an hour checkout from hg.openjdk.java.net, connection terminated by remote hg. Granted, I can workaround this for myself and my team by pointing to tarballs at https://builds.shipilev.net/workspaces/ -- but that is not the solution that fits everyone, or that most people in OpenJDK development know. The traffic to that tarball storage also indicates people actively search how to alleviate their problems with current hg.o.j.n. The more worrying observation is that some disgruntled developers suggest (alas, privately to me, after discovering the tarballs) that Oracle cannot be serious about OpenJDK if Oracle-sponsored infrastructure is infuriatingly slow. Of course, we know that is a conspiracy theory, but we can see the forest behind the trees here: bad developer experience transforms into bad optics, which kneecaps our shared OpenJDK story. I have to pessimistically assume that for each developer who tell me they are disappointed, there are tens who never receive any hand-holding to ease off their first and bad experience with OpenJDK. To add to this, it seemed to me that Skara project goals were to prototype and see what SCM configurations may be better than status quo. Here is my take: clonebundles seem to work, and they make a good stop-gap measure without intrusive changes to the rest of infrastructure and ecosystem. It looks to me the time and effort required to enable clonebundles is understood much better and poses much less work than transition to Git. Bottom-line: the best is the enemy of the good. Please reconsider. -Aleksey From patrick at reini.net Thu Oct 25 09:13:20 2018 From: patrick at reini.net (Patrick Reinhart) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:13:20 +0200 Subject: Contributions welcome? Message-ID: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> Hi everybody, I would like to help getting that project forward as I'm a mostly part-time OpenJDK author that would be very interested to help in that space. Is there any thing I could help in regards of that project? -Patrick From joe.darcy at oracle.com Thu Oct 25 20:10:35 2018 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe darcy) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:10:35 -0700 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> Message-ID: <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> Hi Patrick On 10/25/2018 2:13 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I would like to help getting that project forward as I'm a mostly > part-time OpenJDK author that would be very interested to help in that > space. Is there any thing I could help in regards of that project? > Thanks for stopping by. We're working on open sourcing the bots and other support software that will be used to implement the new workflows we're envisioning. Once that is done, people are welcome to try those out and contribute to their development. In the mean time, you can kick the tires on the git clone of the JDK 12 sources: ??? https://github.com/openjdk/jdk Cheers, -Joe From patrick at reini.net Thu Oct 25 20:29:25 2018 From: patrick at reini.net (Patrick Reinhart) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:29:25 +0200 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> Hi Joe, I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the mercurial way... .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) -Patrick Am 25.10.18 um 22:10 schrieb joe darcy: > Hi Patrick > > > On 10/25/2018 2:13 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> I would like to help getting that project forward as I'm a mostly >> part-time OpenJDK author that would be very interested to help in >> that space. Is there any thing I could help in regards of that project? >> > > Thanks for stopping by. We're working on open sourcing the bots and > other support software that will be used to implement the new > workflows we're envisioning. Once that is done, people are welcome to > try those out and contribute to their development. > > In the mean time, you can kick the tires on the git clone of the JDK > 12 sources: > > ??? https://github.com/openjdk/jdk > > Cheers, > > -Joe > > From joe.darcy at oracle.com Thu Oct 25 20:54:00 2018 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe darcy) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:54:00 -0700 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> Message-ID: <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> On 10/25/2018 1:29 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the > mercurial way... > > .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) > > -Patrick > Thanks Patrick. For all the download testing we've done, we've seen healthy speedups compared to hg :-) -Joe From patrick at reini.net Sat Oct 27 17:54:55 2018 From: patrick at reini.net (Patrick Reinhart) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 19:54:55 +0200 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> Message-ID: <7836c7bd-68a5-5077-893d-cea01eaf2505@reini.net> Hi Joe, Wow !! [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time git clone https://github.com/openjdk/jdk [...] real??? 0m49.661s user??? 0m40.437s sys??? 0m6.495s versus: [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time hg clone https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk [...] real?? ?35m0.594s user?? ?5m48.109s sys?? ?0m33.165s -Patrick Am 25.10.18 um 22:54 schrieb joe darcy: > On 10/25/2018 1:29 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the >> mercurial way... >> >> .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) >> >> -Patrick >> > > Thanks Patrick. > > For all the download testing we've done, we've seen healthy speedups > compared to hg :-) > > -Joe > From joe.darcy at oracle.com Mon Oct 29 16:51:31 2018 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe darcy) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:51:31 -0700 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: <7836c7bd-68a5-5077-893d-cea01eaf2505@reini.net> References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> <7836c7bd-68a5-5077-893d-cea01eaf2505@reini.net> Message-ID: <51f6e499-bdd7-0064-4975-a5cdb6317e13@oracle.com> Hi Patrick, The times you're seeing are consistent with the measurements we've made. Cloning from hg.openjdk can take upwards of 30 minutes in Europe and other locations far (in internet terms) from the server. Clones from github tend to be 1 to 2 minutes at all the locations we've measured, given reasonable equipment. Thanks, -Joe On 10/27/2018 10:54 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Wow !! > > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time git clone https://github.com/openjdk/jdk > [...] > real??? 0m49.661s > user??? 0m40.437s > sys??? 0m6.495s > > > versus: > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time hg clone https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk > [...] > real?? ?35m0.594s > user?? ?5m48.109s > sys?? ?0m33.165s > > > -Patrick > > > Am 25.10.18 um 22:54 schrieb joe darcy: >> On 10/25/2018 1:29 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the >>> mercurial way... >>> >>> .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) >>> >>> -Patrick >>> >> Thanks Patrick. >> >> For all the download testing we've done, we've seen healthy speedups >> compared to hg :-) >> >> -Joe >> > From martijnverburg at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 19:34:51 2018 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:34:51 +0000 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: <51f6e499-bdd7-0064-4975-a5cdb6317e13@oracle.com> References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> <7836c7bd-68a5-5077-893d-cea01eaf2505@reini.net> <51f6e499-bdd7-0064-4975-a5cdb6317e13@oracle.com> Message-ID: FWIW - we?ve seen similar download speeds from our git clones of the mercurial forests (hosted at GitHub) and interestingly it?s decent speeds for our binary releases as well. GitHub?s CDN capabilities seem pretty good, although when they have an outage it certainly hurts. The clone is a bit slower for full 8 update forest clone (loads more history), but it?s still good overall. @Joe - I?ll echo Patrick?s offer to help. Whatever we can do / experiment on your behalf let us know, especially if you?re looking to migrate the 8u repo which has a number of git/hg challenges with regards to history etc that we are working around, it?s been interesting... Cheers, Martijn On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 16:51, joe darcy wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > The times you're seeing are consistent with the measurements we've made. > Cloning from hg.openjdk can take upwards of 30 minutes in Europe and > other locations far (in internet terms) from the server. Clones from > github tend to be 1 to 2 minutes at all the locations we've measured, > given reasonable equipment. > > Thanks, > > -Joe > > > On 10/27/2018 10:54 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > Wow !! > > > > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time git clone https://github.com/openjdk/jdk > > [...] > > real 0m49.661s > > user 0m40.437s > > sys 0m6.495s > > > > > > versus: > > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time hg clone https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk > > [...] > > real 35m0.594s > > user 5m48.109s > > sys 0m33.165s > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > Am 25.10.18 um 22:54 schrieb joe darcy: > >> On 10/25/2018 1:29 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > >>> Hi Joe, > >>> > >>> I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the > >>> mercurial way... > >>> > >>> .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) > >>> > >>> -Patrick > >>> > >> Thanks Patrick. > >> > >> For all the download testing we've done, we've seen healthy speedups > >> compared to hg :-) > >> > >> -Joe > >> > > > > -- Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile) From joe.darcy at oracle.com Tue Oct 30 15:57:53 2018 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe darcy) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:57:53 -0700 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> <7836c7bd-68a5-5077-893d-cea01eaf2505@reini.net> <51f6e499-bdd7-0064-4975-a5cdb6317e13@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Martijn, Thanks for the offer; we'll keep that in mind as Skara progress. For now, we're focusing efforts on considering the SCM and code review systems for JDK 12 and later. Cheers, -Joe On 10/29/2018 12:34 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote: > FWIW - we?ve seen similar download speeds from our git clones of the > mercurial forests (hosted at GitHub) and interestingly it?s decent > speeds for our binary releases as well.? GitHub?s CDN capabilities > seem pretty good, although when they have an outage it certainly hurts. > > The clone is a bit slower for full 8 update forest clone (loads more > history), but it?s still good overall. > > @Joe - I?ll echo Patrick?s offer to help. Whatever we can do / > experiment on your behalf let us know, especially if you?re looking to > migrate the 8u repo which has a number of git/hg challenges with > regards to history etc that we are working around, it?s been > interesting... > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 16:51, joe darcy > wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > The times you're seeing are consistent with the measurements we've > made. > Cloning from hg.openjdk can take upwards of 30 minutes in Europe and > other locations far (in internet terms) from the server. Clones from > github tend to be 1 to 2 minutes at all the locations we've measured, > given reasonable equipment. > > Thanks, > > -Joe > > > On 10/27/2018 10:54 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > Wow !! > > > > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time git clone https://github.com/openjdk/jdk > > [...] > > real??? 0m49.661s > > user??? 0m40.437s > > sys??? 0m6.495s > > > > > > versus: > > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time hg clone > https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk > > [...] > > real?? ?35m0.594s > > user?? ?5m48.109s > > sys?? ?0m33.165s > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > Am 25.10.18 um 22:54 schrieb joe darcy: > >> On 10/25/2018 1:29 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: > >>> Hi Joe, > >>> > >>> I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the > >>> mercurial way... > >>> > >>> .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) > >>> > >>> -Patrick > >>> > >> Thanks Patrick. > >> > >> For all the download testing we've done, we've seen healthy > speedups > >> compared to hg :-) > >> > >> -Joe > >> > > > > -- > Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile) From joe.darcy at oracle.com Tue Oct 30 16:01:12 2018 From: joe.darcy at oracle.com (joe darcy) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:01:12 -0700 Subject: FYI, video of demo of in-progress Skara work Message-ID: Hello, Erik Duveblad and I gave a short demo of the in-progress Skara work at the Code One conference last week, with Robin Westberg making sure all the services were working. The demo starts at https://youtu.be/nKJbDYRsO0s?t=1274 and runs for about four minutes. To summarize a few salient points, using a github mirror it is possible to initiate a pull request for a code change within the browser. It is possible to run bots that execute structural checks on the code change from the pull request; a jcheck bot to check the JDK whitespace rules is run in the demo. Bots can also check properties of the review workflow, such as if a capital-R reviewer is included or that the review has been open for a minimum period of time. To emphasis a point made in the video, this is exploratory work and no vendor or solution has been definitively chosen. We are working to publish the source code of the bots and other supporting software used in the demo and will send out notice when that is done. Cheers, -Joe From martijnverburg at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 16:57:35 2018 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:57:35 +0000 Subject: Contributions welcome? In-Reply-To: References: <4a8927b3dfb0d5b251e050f8c48246a7@reini.net> <1383f44e-b8b7-0b57-99a1-c4b59f3274ce@oracle.com> <5d8ff866-6921-b5eb-3320-447390c39557@reini.net> <90fe7f87-2d02-d226-2acf-582b43550af6@oracle.com> <7836c7bd-68a5-5077-893d-cea01eaf2505@reini.net> <51f6e499-bdd7-0064-4975-a5cdb6317e13@oracle.com> Message-ID: Cool - our code revies are around GitHub PRs and I?ll say they?re not very satisfactory. It lends itself to syntax focused as opposed to semantic focused reviews. This is a fault of many review systems though I supppse. Cheers, Martijn On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 15:58, joe darcy wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Thanks for the offer; we'll keep that in mind as Skara progress. > > For now, we're focusing efforts on considering the SCM and code review > systems for JDK 12 and later. > > Cheers, > > -Joe > > On 10/29/2018 12:34 PM, Martijn Verburg wrote: > > FWIW - we?ve seen similar download speeds from our git clones of the > mercurial forests (hosted at GitHub) and interestingly it?s decent speeds > for our binary releases as well. GitHub?s CDN capabilities seem pretty > good, although when they have an outage it certainly hurts. > > The clone is a bit slower for full 8 update forest clone (loads more > history), but it?s still good overall. > > @Joe - I?ll echo Patrick?s offer to help. Whatever we can do / experiment > on your behalf let us know, especially if you?re looking to migrate the 8u > repo which has a number of git/hg challenges with regards to history etc > that we are working around, it?s been interesting... > > Cheers, > Martijn > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 16:51, joe darcy wrote: > >> Hi Patrick, >> >> The times you're seeing are consistent with the measurements we've made. >> Cloning from hg.openjdk can take upwards of 30 minutes in Europe and >> other locations far (in internet terms) from the server. Clones from >> github tend to be 1 to 2 minutes at all the locations we've measured, >> given reasonable equipment. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Joe >> >> >> On 10/27/2018 10:54 AM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: >> > Hi Joe, >> > >> > Wow !! >> > >> > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time git clone https://github.com/openjdk/jdk >> > [...] >> > real 0m49.661s >> > user 0m40.437s >> > sys 0m6.495s >> > >> > >> > versus: >> > [pr at wsccuw01 openjdk]$ time hg clone >> https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk >> > [...] >> > real 35m0.594s >> > user 5m48.109s >> > sys 0m33.165s >> > >> > >> > -Patrick >> > >> > >> > Am 25.10.18 um 22:54 schrieb joe darcy: >> >> On 10/25/2018 1:29 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote: >> >>> Hi Joe, >> >>> >> >>> I will get my a clone and see how fast that goes compared to the >> >>> mercurial way... >> >>> >> >>> .. and hey: I was ranked as #33 contributor :-) >> >>> >> >>> -Patrick >> >>> >> >> Thanks Patrick. >> >> >> >> For all the download testing we've done, we've seen healthy speedups >> >> compared to hg :-) >> >> >> >> -Joe >> >> >> > > > >> >> -- > Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile) > > > -- Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile) From martijnverburg at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 20:29:39 2018 From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:29:39 +0000 Subject: FYI, video of demo of in-progress Skara work In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's really cool - we had a bunch of bots working like this in the early Betterrev experiments. One of them was a mailing list to source code mapper so you could have a bot ask "Have you raised a conversation in the following mailing lists?". Cheers, Martijn On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 16:01, joe darcy wrote: > Hello, > > Erik Duveblad and I gave a short demo of the in-progress Skara work at > the Code One conference last week, with Robin Westberg making sure all > the services were working. The demo starts at > https://youtu.be/nKJbDYRsO0s?t=1274 and runs for about four minutes. To > summarize a few salient points, using a github mirror it is possible to > initiate a pull request for a code change within the browser. It is > possible to run bots that execute structural checks on the code change > from the pull request; a jcheck bot to check the JDK whitespace rules is > run in the demo. Bots can also check properties of the review workflow, > such as if a capital-R reviewer is included or that the review has been > open for a minimum period of time. > > To emphasis a point made in the video, this is exploratory work and no > vendor or solution has been definitively chosen. > > We are working to publish the source code of the bots and other > supporting software used in the demo and will send out notice when that > is done. > > Cheers, > > -Joe > >