"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 -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @graydon_pub and
Can you describe how to make rustc 10x as fast? Everyone says that of course it’s possible, 10x is easy to get, it’s just that nobody cares about compiler perf, etc. etc., And then everyone who tries ends up with, like, a perf boost of 10% if that.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @BRIAN_____ and
I absolutely did not say it's easy to get. I spent the past 3 years squeezing a factor-of-a-few out of Swift, and it was a mix of lots of analysis, hard reorganization work, tradeoffs and even periodic changes to language design to knock out bottlenecks. But it can be a priority.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well, we did that. It’s 3x faster now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19638531 … It took a lot of time to get that far. Could it have been faster if we made it more of a priority? Dunno! Hard to argue counterfactuals, as you said.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton @BRIAN_____ and
Wonderful! So here is my (only) point: such investment is a better answer to the question of "can we afford to do lock-step CI" than turning it off and living with the fallout of constant breakage. I'm glad the team made the decision to invest in that and keep it on!
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.