Oh, yeah, to be clear I *vastly* prefer the "never break master" CI model, more pointing out that it has scaling issues that are tricky -- not impossible -- to deal with
-
-
In Rust's case I wrote up an autobatching scheme years ago, requiring a straightforward three way PR classification, but doing it well requires more CI budget than we have right now. Probably could deploy a simpler version of it that gets us some wins.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ManishEarth @stephentyrone
I mean I'm nowhere near the purse strings but this has literally been an issue off-and-on since I .. uh .. left the project. We were having an argument over it that very week. It means prioritizing cycle time in a way that seems to resist all rational planning. I don't get it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Like if someone with the correct authority said "we don't do any more feature work or bug fixing or anything until cycle time is down to 10 minutes", it would get solved. It's not like compilers that bootstrap and self-test that fast (without $infinite_aws_bill) can't be written.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
I’m fine with investing in automatic rollups (the fact that we have to do them bugs me too), but you lost me at “stop all feature/bug fix work until the compiler is 10x faster”.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @graydon_pub and
I’m not even convinced it’s possible for Rust to compile that fast without simplifying the language a lot. Even if it were, you’re talking about a complete rewrite of major subsystems. Like either “rewrite the whole typechecker” or “rewrite LLVM”.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
The whole compiler has been substantially rewritten multiple times since you and I last had this argument in person, so .. I kinda don't buy that. It's chronic under-prioritization of the topic, not "we can't possibly find the time".
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
It is extremely not true that the Rust team underprioritizes compiler performance. That’s, like, the #1 thing they prioritize.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Possibly now. Definitely not in the past. Path to the present .. is hard to argue. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice. I'm saying the present was arrived at by choice, not fate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pcwalton and
(You also just said that you would not, in fact, be willing to entertain a freeze on other work in favor of compiler performance, which is what it means to prioritize it over all else. So I _think_ there's a contradiction about priorities lurking here.)
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I’m saying that if we had done so, I suspect we would have never exited the freeze.
-
-
*Shrug* I don't see why ten minutes would be an impossible number to hit, but ok.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.