jenkins: osx10.15 release for all versions #2203
Conversation
rvagg
force-pushed
the
rvagg/osx1015-all-release
branch
from
e6eebdc
to
37c1a38
Compare
rvagg
force-pushed
the
rvagg/osx1015-all-release
branch
4 times, most recently
from
6852f6f
to
7961973
Compare
|
Rebased, should be ready to go but would really appreciate sanity checking. What I intend:
|
| [ /^osx1010/, testType, gte(11) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1010/, releaseType, noVer ], | ||
| [ /^osx1011/, testType, gte(14) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, lt(13) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, noVer ], | ||
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, allVer ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I've been reminded that these are exclusions, so noVer and allVer should be the other way around?
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, lt(11) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, gte(13) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1010/, testType, gte(11) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1010/, releaseType, noVer ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [ /^osx1010/, releaseType, noVer ], | |
| [ /^osx1010/, releaseType, allVer ], |
For "all versions" don't release on 10.10
| [ /^osx1011/, testType, gte(14) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, lt(13) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, noVer ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, noVer ], | |
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, allVer ], |
for "all versions", don't release on 10.11
| [ /^osx1011/, testType, gte(14) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, lt(13) ], | ||
| [ /^osx1011/, releaseType, noVer ], | ||
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, allVer ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, allVer ], | |
| [ /^osx1015/, releaseType, noVer ], |
Exclude 10.15 for release build on "no versions" -- which is a no-op, it should just be removed.
rvagg
force-pushed
the
rvagg/osx1015-all-release
branch
from
7961973
to
ae48e72
Compare
|
Thanks fellas! This script is starting to feel more like a footgun. Inverted those |
Yeah, I think it's easier to think of inclusions (e.g. run tests on 14 and above) rather than exclusions (e.g. don't run tests on 13 and below) but the number of entries in the table makes me hesitant to flip the conditions. On the other hand making it inclusions would make retiring hosts easier as we would gradually shrink the inclusions for the host and then remove altogether. At the moment with exclusions we have to be very careful removing an entry from the file as no entry implies run everywhere. |
rvagg
force-pushed
the
rvagg/osx1015-all-release
branch
from
ae48e72
to
6ac957b
Compare
|
Looks like this is good to go! We are planning an LTS release for 10.x and 12.x next week so would be good to get this landed ASAP so we can build an RC with the notary stuffs |
This lands on top of #2202, after we get nodejs/node#31459 backported to 12.x and 10.x which happens after we successfully get a 13.x release or two out.
See timeline in #2199 (comment)