We should change the name (yes, to linux-rel) regardless of this issue, but the fear of us having colliding build numbers is legit.
It might be worth poking around a bit to see if we can figure out how widespread that is.
I did some digging, and it looks like this mainly affects the builders we've had for a long time:
mac_chromium_rel_ng has bad value at 148244
linux_chromium_rel_ng has bad value at 194884
win7_chromium_rel_ng has bad value at 92922
These are builds which I verified using gsutil to have very old results json files (did this with a small script).
So I guess we rename those to....
mac-rel
linux-rel
win7-rel
? Are those descriptive enough names? Do we need to add anything else?
I'm worried the rename will break all sorts of little scripts. Will send out PSAs and dig around in code search.
Are there a lot of collisions with "old" values, or just a few?
If you were to follow the bit.ly/chromium-build-naming doc, that is the names you'd get. Given the *very* high visibility of these three builders in particular, it's probably worth doing another pass over that doc to make sure we don't want to change anything again. I know there are a few open items that I've wanted to address.
So, maybe give me this afternoon to do that, and then we can double-check and move forward?
These names would be in luci.chromium.try; there's already some precedent for duplicated names across buckets. I've done it for the jumbo builders: https://ci.chromium.org/search?q=linux-jumbo-rel
In retrospect, the builders on the "chromium" waterfall should've been named with either "clobber" or "archive" in them, e.g., linux-archive-rel, since that's the main distinction between them and linux_chromium_rel_ng.
"archive" is probably better, since the existing mirrored tryjobs have "archive" in the name.
Cc: -dpranke@google.com dpranke@chromium.org Owner: martiniss@chromium.org Summary: rename mac-rel, mac_chromium_rel_ng et al. (was: Stale layout test results in cloud storage)
@martiniss - bouncing back to you to rename the chromium waterfall bots, if that's okay?
Updating the title to "rename mac-rel, mac_chromium_rel_ng et al"
Ok, I'll rename the builders. Here's the changes I'm going to make:
* mac-rel -> mac-archive-rel
* mac_chromium_rel_ng -> mac-rel
* win{,32}-rel -> win{,32}-archive-rel
* win7_chromium_rel_ng -> win7-rel
* linux-rel -> linux-archive-rel
* linux_chromium_rel_ng -> linux-rel
win7-rel seems a bit weird to me, maybe just cause we don't have numbers in the OS name anywhere else.
Any objections to this plan?
Ok. Plan is as follows:
1. Send out PSA to chromium-dev (or infra-dev? both?) announcing change
2. Land CL in tools/build to add duplicate configs for the new builder names
3. Land internal CL to make bots powering the builders advertise both builder names.
4. Land CL in chromium/src to rename builders. Will probably do this off peak MTV time, since I think there will be some breakage, as different LUCI services pick up configs at different speeds.
5. Cleanup tools/build configs
I'm going to also rename the android bots, and also make sure to rename the debug versions of these bots. So, revised list:
* android-{rel,dbg} -> android-archive-{rel,dbg}
* mac-{rel,dbg} -> mac-archive-{rel,dbg}
* mac_chromium_rel_ng -> mac-rel
* win{,32}-{rel,dbg} -> win{,32}-archive-{rel,dbg}
* win7_chromium_rel_ng -> win7-rel
* linux-{rel,dbg} -> linux-archive-{rel,dbg}
* linux_chromium_rel_ng -> linux-rel
I would probably not try to do everything all at once, if that's what you're asking.
However, the more builders you want to rename overall, the better by me :).
I would agree that builders should be renamed gradually, though announced all at once. I would definitely announce to chromium-dev. I'm not sure the folks who are on infra-dev and not chromium-dev would care.
Names all SGTM, and agree that the more, the merrier
> I guess it wouldn't be too bad after a day or two... just unfortunate
Yeah, this is a long-standing limitation of the way the current flakiness dashboard works. It's something I'd expect us to fix when we replace it (hopefully next year), but not before then. In the meantime, I don't think this limitation should keep us from renaming builders.
I'm working on renaming these. I'm going to keep the old builders around in buildbucket, so that existing links to builds on these builders don't break. I'll delete them in Q2 2019 (or maybe earlier, depending on how much usage they see).
I'm thinking of adding something to milo to note that builders have been renamed. I'll discuss this more with the team in our team meeting on Thursday.
Comment 1 by dpranke@chromium.org
, Sep 25