"We'll just deal with everyone hiking miles to go fetch water, and getting cholera every few days and so forth. We've managed our hydration and sanitation this way a long time, and plumbing is _so_ much work to install!"
-
-
Replying to @graydon_pub @stephentyrone
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
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
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 -
Replying to @graydon_pub @pcwalton and
(And maybe that under-prioritization was the right choice at the time, idk. Counterfactuals all the way down. I do know that every time it comes up -- in nearly every project I've worked on -- there's always a reason why we can't or shouldn't; lots more than other areas.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Again, strongly disagree. Bazel focuses on the big company workflow. Cargo focuses on the open source workflow. It would have been a mistake to try to serve big companies first without focusing on package management/code sharing.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sayrer @graydon_pub and
I’m not talking about big companies vs. small companies. I’m talking about companies vs. the open source ecosystem. How many large open source projects use Bazel? Not even Chromium does!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 48 more replies
-
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.