Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

proposal: build: promote windows/arm64 to first class port #65284

Open
dagood opened this issue Jan 25, 2024 · 13 comments
Open

proposal: build: promote windows/arm64 to first class port #65284

dagood opened this issue Jan 25, 2024 · 13 comments

Comments

@dagood
Copy link
Contributor

dagood commented Jan 25, 2024

Proposal Details

We (@qmuntal, @gdams, and I--Microsoft folks) think the windows/arm64 port is at a point where it fits https://go.dev/wiki/PortingPolicy#first-class-ports and can be promoted.

Specifically: the windows/arm64 builders have been running for a while and don't seem to have unreasonable maintenance problems, and the builders are operated by the Go team.

I'm raising this proposal to see if it's time, or to find out if there's anything we can help with to get it there.

Follows up on this comment and issue:

@bcmills
Copy link
Contributor

bcmills commented Jan 25, 2024

For reference, the open issues for windows/arm64:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AOS-Windows+label%3Aarch-arm64

@bcmills
Copy link
Contributor

bcmills commented Jan 25, 2024

@dagood
Copy link
Contributor Author

dagood commented Jan 26, 2024

This one seems like a similar kind of weird flakiness, given @qmuntal's comment about 274GB:

@ianlancetaylor ianlancetaylor moved this to Incoming in Proposals Feb 7, 2024
@ianlancetaylor
Copy link
Contributor

CC @golang/windows

@ianlancetaylor
Copy link
Contributor

CC @golang/release

@rsc rsc changed the title proposal: promote windows/arm64 to first class port proposal: build: promote windows/arm64 to first class port Mar 1, 2024
@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Mar 1, 2024

It would be good to have some eyes on the issues that @bcmills pointed out above.

@rsc rsc moved this from Incoming to Active in Proposals Mar 1, 2024
@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Mar 1, 2024

This proposal has been added to the active column of the proposals project
and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings.
— rsc for the proposal review group

@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Mar 6, 2024

What benefits of being first class are you trying to achieve? Note that we ship binaries for all ports now.

@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Mar 27, 2024

I'm still curious what benefits of being first class you are trying to achieve.

The main thing that would give us pause about declaring it first class is that we don't have the builder bandwidth to really hammer on tests the way we do for the other first class ports, including for presubmits. Our new build infrastructure LUCI can treat Azure as a reverse builder but does not know how to autoscale. The same scaling issues affect the macOS port, but we do have more builders there. I am not sure about their relative speeds.

@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Apr 3, 2024

@dagood, @qmuntal, and @gdams, any thoughts on the questions above?

@qmuntal
Copy link
Contributor

qmuntal commented Apr 5, 2024

The main thing that would give us pause about declaring it first class is that we don't have the builder bandwidth to really hammer on tests the way we do for the other first class ports, including for presubmits.

Agree, windows/arm64 builders are not scalable right now and they tend to hang every now and then (see #58604). I would like to fix that regardless of the outcome of this proposal. @gdams can help getting some more Azure resources and provide guidance to implement whatever autoscale pieces missing.

What benefits of being first class are you trying to achieve? Note that we ship binaries for all ports now.

Broken first-class port builds block releases. This is an important benefit for obvious reasons. On the other hand, the @golang/windows team currently has a skeleton crew now that @bcmills left Google, and I'm taking a 4-months paternity-leave soon. Given this situation, I would rather put this proposal on hold until we have more bandwidth to properly support windowd/arm64 as a first class port.

@rsc
Copy link
Contributor

rsc commented Apr 10, 2024

Placed on hold.
— rsc for the proposal review group

@rsc rsc moved this from Active to Hold in Proposals Apr 10, 2024
@thanm
Copy link
Contributor

thanm commented Jun 7, 2024

See also #66962 (comment).

At the moment due to the instabilities described there the LUCI windows-arm64 builders seem to only stay usable for 4-7 days before they have to be rebooted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Hold
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants