Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
3 participants
  • John Kehayias
  • Christopher Baines
  • Simon Streit
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
John Kehayias
Severity
normal
J
J
John Kehayias wrote on 4 Apr 07:55 +0200
(name . guix-patches@gnu.org)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
87ttkhvfie.fsf@protonmail.com
Hi Guix,

I submitted a bunch of patches to mesa-updates a few days ago. From what I can tell things have gone well on x86_64, with most of the "new" failures listed are compared to previous mesa-updates and are ones broken on master too. A few failed from some time issue on hydra 128. And a few were legitimate failures which I have fixed. I'll go through again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I've been using this branch locally for a few things without issues so far.

So...I'm guessing the main thing is to wait for non-x86 coverage. Is there a way to see that on Bordeaux? As always, please report any issues, but hopefully this will be good to go once builds are done.

John
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 4 Apr 10:13 +0200
(name . John Kehayias via Guix-patches via)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
87h6ghilyw.fsf@cbaines.net
John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (12 lines)
> I submitted a bunch of patches to mesa-updates a few days ago. From
> what I can tell things have gone well on x86_64, with most of the
> "new" failures listed are compared to previous mesa-updates and are
> ones broken on master too. A few failed from some time issue on hydra
> 128. And a few were legitimate failures which I have fixed. I'll go
> through again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I've been using
> this branch locally for a few things without issues so far.
>
> So...I'm guessing the main thing is to wait for non-x86 coverage. Is
> there a way to see that on Bordeaux? As always, please report any
> issues, but hopefully this will be good to go once builds are done.

The page on QA should show substitute availability [1]. It's probably
going to take a week, probably closer to two to get to a reasonable
level.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=2r8n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

S
S
Simon Streit wrote on 4 Apr 14:57 +0200
(name . John Kehayias via Guix-patches via)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
yguy19tl1ym.fsf@netpanic.org
Hello John,

John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> I submitted a bunch of patches to mesa-updates a few days ago. From
> what I can tell things have gone well on x86_64, with most of the
> "new" failures listed are compared to previous mesa-updates and are
> ones broken on master too. A few failed from some time issue on hydra
> 128. And a few were legitimate failures which I have fixed. I'll go
> through again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I've been using
> this branch locally for a few things without issues so far.

I've rolled out the branch on an old machine and it is looking all good
here. The current mesa update also fixes an issue where rendering is
broken with GTK4 applications in Gnome on master.


Kind regards,

--
Simon
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 15 Apr 12:32 +0200
(name . John Kehayias via Guix-patches via)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
87y19ex6fl.fsf@cbaines.net
Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

Toggle quote (18 lines)
> John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I submitted a bunch of patches to mesa-updates a few days ago. From
>> what I can tell things have gone well on x86_64, with most of the
>> "new" failures listed are compared to previous mesa-updates and are
>> ones broken on master too. A few failed from some time issue on hydra
>> 128. And a few were legitimate failures which I have fixed. I'll go
>> through again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I've been using
>> this branch locally for a few things without issues so far.
>>
>> So...I'm guessing the main thing is to wait for non-x86 coverage. Is
>> there a way to see that on Bordeaux? As always, please report any
>> issues, but hopefully this will be good to go once builds are done.
>
> The page on QA should show substitute availability [1]. It's probably
> going to take a week, probably closer to two to get to a reasonable
> level.

Substitute availability is getting there, it's just i686-linux which is
lagging behind (which is expected with the limited compute resources
available).

I've just pushed a merge commit to keep the branch up to date with
master.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=M0dH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

J
J
John Kehayias wrote on 17 Apr 07:25 +0200
Re: bug#70178: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)
87zfts1ryj.fsf_-_@protonmail.com
Hello,

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:32 AM, Christopher Baines wrote:

Toggle quote (27 lines)
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> I submitted a bunch of patches to mesa-updates a few days ago. From
>>> what I can tell things have gone well on x86_64, with most of the
>>> "new" failures listed are compared to previous mesa-updates and are
>>> ones broken on master too. A few failed from some time issue on hydra
>>> 128. And a few were legitimate failures which I have fixed. I'll go
>>> through again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I've been using
>>> this branch locally for a few things without issues so far.
>>>
>>> So...I'm guessing the main thing is to wait for non-x86 coverage. Is
>>> there a way to see that on Bordeaux? As always, please report any
>>> issues, but hopefully this will be good to go once builds are done.
>>
>> The page on QA should show substitute availability [1]. It's probably
>> going to take a week, probably closer to two to get to a reasonable
>> level.
>
> Substitute availability is getting there, it's just i686-linux which is
> lagging behind (which is expected with the limited compute resources
> available).
>
> I've just pushed a merge commit to keep the branch up to date with
> master.

Thanks for helping out. I merged with
2d5736cc3e869fadd2592cc13a8d332fac63b144. i686 is still a bit lower but
seemed to really slow down or pause, even after I gave it another day.
Anyways, hopefully is fine!

Also, thanks Simon for testing and reporting, apologies for not
responding earlier to your message.

Thanks,
John
Closed
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 17 Apr 12:52 +0200
(name . John Kehayias)(address . john.kehayias@protonmail.com)
875xwgtg55.fsf@cbaines.net
John Kehayias <john.kehayias@protonmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (36 lines)
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:32 AM, Christopher Baines wrote:
>
>> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>>
>>> John Kehayias via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> I submitted a bunch of patches to mesa-updates a few days ago. From
>>>> what I can tell things have gone well on x86_64, with most of the
>>>> "new" failures listed are compared to previous mesa-updates and are
>>>> ones broken on master too. A few failed from some time issue on hydra
>>>> 128. And a few were legitimate failures which I have fixed. I'll go
>>>> through again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I've been using
>>>> this branch locally for a few things without issues so far.
>>>>
>>>> So...I'm guessing the main thing is to wait for non-x86 coverage. Is
>>>> there a way to see that on Bordeaux? As always, please report any
>>>> issues, but hopefully this will be good to go once builds are done.
>>>
>>> The page on QA should show substitute availability [1]. It's probably
>>> going to take a week, probably closer to two to get to a reasonable
>>> level.
>>
>> Substitute availability is getting there, it's just i686-linux which is
>> lagging behind (which is expected with the limited compute resources
>> available).
>>
>> I've just pushed a merge commit to keep the branch up to date with
>> master.
>
> Thanks for helping out. I merged with
> 2d5736cc3e869fadd2592cc13a8d332fac63b144. i686 is still a bit lower but
> seemed to really slow down or pause, even after I gave it another day.
> Anyways, hopefully is fine!

Great. As for the i686 builds, this was probably slowed down by the
x86_64 builds taking priority after pushing the master merge, since that
triggered builds for both i686 and x86_64.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=McVL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 70178@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 70178
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch