A lot of people contributed some really great feedback about MozReview at Whistler. One of the most frequent requests was for the ability to publish submitted review requests without having to open a browser. I'm pleased to report that as of yesterday, this feature is implemented! If reviewers have been assigned to all your review requests, Mercurial will now prompt you to publish the review requests during hg push. It should just work.
As part of this change, we also introduced more advanced feature negotiation into the handshake between client and server. This means we now have a mechanism for detecting out-of-date client installations. This will enable us to more aggressively drop backwards compatibility (making server-side development easier) while simultaneously ensuring that more people are running modern and hopefully better versions of the client code. This should translate to moving faster and a better experience for everyone.
We currently display:
- More detailed pushlog info. (Before you had to load another page to see things like the date of the push.)
- The list of reviewers, each being a link that searches for other changesets they've reviewed.
- A concise list of bugs referenced in the commit message.
- Links to changesets that were backed out by this changeset.
- On changesets that were backed out, we may also display a message that the changeset was backed out.
- For Firefox repos, we also display the application milestone. This is the Gecko/app version recorded in the config/milestone.txt file in that changeset. The value can be used to quickly answer the question What versions of Firefox have this changeset.
If you notice any issues or have requests for new features, please file a bug.
This work is built on top of a feature I added to Mercurial 3.4 to make it easier to inject extra data into Mercurial's web templates. We just deployed Mercurial 3.4.1 to hg.mozilla.org yesterday. It's worth noting that this deployment happened in the middle of the day with no user-perceived downtime. This is a far cry from where we were a year ago, when any server change required a maintenance window. We've invested a lot of work into a test suite for this service so we can continuously deploy without fear of breaking things. Moving fast feels so good.
This was a busy week for MozReview! There are a number of changes people need to be aware of.
Support for Specifying Reviewers via Commit Messages
MozReview will now parse r?gps syntax out of commit messages to set reviewers for pushed commits.
Read the docs for more information, including why we are preferring r? to r=.
Since it landed, a number of workflow concerns have been reported. See the bug tree for bug 1142251 before filing a bug to help avoid duplicates.
Thank Dan Minor for the feature!
Review Attachment/Flag Per Commit
Since the beginning of MozReview, there was one Bugzilla attachment / review flag per commit series. This has changed to one attachment / review flag per commit.
Before, you needed to grant Ship It on the parent/root review request in order to r+ the MozReview review request. Now, you grant Ship It on individual commits and these turn into individual r+ on Bugzilla. To reinforce that reviewing the parent/root review request doesn't do anything meaningful any more, the Ship It button and checkbox have been removed from the parent/root review request.
The new model more closely maps to how code review in Bugzilla has worked at Mozilla for ages. And, it is a superior workflow for future workflows we're trying to enable.
We tried to run a one-time migration script to convert existing parent/root attachments/review flags to per-commit attachments/flags. However, there were issues. We will attempt again sometime next week. In the interim, in-flight review requests may enter an inconsistent state if they are updated. If a new push is performed, the old parent/root attachment/review flag may linger and per-commit attachments/flags will be created. This could be confusing. The workaround is to manually clear the r? flag from the parent/root attachment or wait for the migration script to run in a few days.
Mark Côté put in a lot of hard work to make this change happen.
r? Flags Cleared After Review
Before, submitting a review without granting Ship It wouldn't do anything to the r? flag: the r? flag would linger.
Now, submitting review without granting Ship It will clear the r? flag. We think the new default is better for the majority of users. However, we recognize it isn't always wanted. There is a bug open to provide a checkbox to keep the r? flag present.
Metadata Added to Changesets
If you update to the tip of the version-control-tools repository (you should do this every week or so to stay fresh - use mach mercurial-setup to do this automatically), metadata will automatically be added to commits when working with MozReview-enabled repositories.
Specifically, we insert a hidden, unique, random ID into every changeset. This ID can be used to map commits to each other. We don't use this ID yet. But we have plans.
A side-effect of this change is that you can no longer push to MozReview if you have uncommitted local changes. If this is annoying, use hg shelve and hg unshelve to create and undo temporary commits. If this is too annoying, complain by filing a bug and we can look into doing this automatically as part of pushing.
We're actively working on more workflow enhancements to make MozReview an even more compelling experience.
I'm building a web service to query file metadata from moz.build files. This will allow MozReview to automatically file bugs in proper components based on what files changed. Once code reviewer metadata is added to moz.build files, it will enable us to assign reviewers automatically as well. The end goal here is to lower the number of steps needed to turn changed code into a landing. This will be useful when we turn GitHub pull requests into MozReview review requests (random GitHub contributors shouldn't need to know who to flag for review, nor should they be required to file a bug if they write some code). Oh year, we're working on integrating GitHub pull requests.
Another area of focus is better commit tracking and partially landed series. I have preliminary patches for automatically adding review URL annotations to commit messages. This will enable people to easily go from commit (message) to MozReview, without having to jump through Bugzilla. This also enables better commit tracking. If you e.g. perform complicated history rewriting, the review URL annotation will enable the MozReview server to better map previously-submitted commits to existing review requests. Partially landed series will enable commits to land as soon as they are reviewed, without having to wait on the entire series. It's my strong belief that if a commit is granted review, it should land as soon as possible. This helps prevent bit rot of ready-to-land commits. Landings also make people feel better because you feel like you've accomplished something. Positive feedback loops are good.
Major work is also being done to overhaul the web UI. The commit series view (which is currently populated via XHR) will soon be generated on the server and served as part of the page. This should make pages load a bit faster. And, things should be prettier as well.
And, of course, work is being invested into Autoland. Support for submitting pushes to Try landed a few weeks ago. Having Autoland actually land reviewed commits is on the radar.
Exciting times are ahead. Please continue to provide feedback. If you see something, say something.
When you type hg clone, the Mercurial server will create a bundle from repository content at the time of the request and stream it to the client. (Git works essentially the same way.)
This approach usually just works. But there are some downsides, particularly with large repositories.
Creating bundles for large repositories is not cheap. For mozilla-central, Firefox's main repository, it takes ~280s of CPU time on my 2014 MacBook Pro to generate a bundle. Every time a client runs a hg clone https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central, a server somewhere is spinning a CPU core generating ~1.1 GB of data. What's more, if another clone arrives at the same time, another process will perform the exact same work! When we talk about multiple minutes of CPU time per request, this extra work starts to add up.
Another problem with large repositories is interrupted downloads. If you suffer a connectivity blip during your clone command, you'll have to start from scratch. This potentially means re-transferring hundreds of megabytes from the server. It also means the server has to generate a new bundle, consuming even more CPU time. This is not good for the user or the server.
There have been multiple outages of hg.mozilla.org as a result of the service being flooded with clone requests to large repositories. Dozens of clients (most of them in Firefox or Firefox OS release automation) have cloned the same repository around the same time and overwhelmed network bandwidth in the data center or CPU cores on the Mercurial servers.
A common solution to this problem is to not use the clone command to receive initial repository data from the server. Instead, a static bundle file will be generated and made available to clients. Clients will call hg init to create an empty repository then will perform an hg unbundle to apply the contents of a pre-generated bundle file. They will then run hg pull to fetch new data that was created after the bundle was generated. (It's worth noting that Git's clone --reference option is similar.)
This is a good technical solution. Firefox and Firefox OS release automation have effectively implemented this. However, it is a lot of work: you have to build your own bundle generation and hosting infrastructure and you have to remember that every hg clone should probably be using bundles instead. It is extra complexity and complexity that must be undertaken by every client. If a client forgets, the consequences can be disastrous (clone flooding leading to service outage). Client-side opt-in is prone to lapses and doesn't scale.
As of today, we've deployed a more scalable, server-based solution to hg.mozilla.org.
hg.mozilla.org is now itself generating bundles for a handful of repositories, including mozilla-central, inbound, fx-team, and mozharness. These bundles are being uploaded to Amazon S3. And those bundles are being advertised by the server over Mercurial's wire protocol.
When you install the bundleclone Mercurial extension, hg clone is taught to look for bundles being advertised on the server. If a bundle is available, the bundle is downloaded, applied, and then the client does the equivalent of an hg pull to fetch all new data since when the bundle was generated. If a bundle exists, it is used transparently: no client side cooperation is needed beyond installing the bundleclone extension. If a bundle doesn't exist, it simply falls back to Mercurial's default behavior. This effectively shifts responsibility for doing efficient clones from clients to server operators, which means server operators don't need cooperation from clients to enact important service changes. Before, if clients weren't using bundles, we'd have to wait for clients to update their code. Now, we can see a repository is being cloned heavily and start generating bundles for it without having to wait for the client to deploy new code.
Furthermore, we've built primitive content negotiation into the process. The server doesn't simply advertise one bundle file: it advertises several bundle files. We offer gzip, bzip2, and stream bundles. gzip is what Mercurial uses by default. It works OK. bzip2 bundles are smaller, but they take longer to process. stream bundles are essentially tar archives of the .hg/store directory and are larger than gzip bundles, but insanely fast because there is very little CPU required to apply them. In addition, we advertise URLs for multiple S3 regions, currently us-west-2 (Oregon) and us-east-1 (Virginia). This enables clients to prefer the bundle most appropriate for them.
A benefit of serving bundles from S3 is that Firefox and Firefox OS release automation (the biggest consumers of hg.mozilla.org) live in Amazon EC2. They are able to fetch from S3 over a gigabit network. And, since we're transferring data within the same AWS region, there are no data transfer costs. Previously, we were transferring ~1.1 GB from a Mozilla data center to EC2 for each clone. This took up bandwidth in Mozilla's network and cost Mozilla money to send data thousands of miles away. And, we never came close to saturating a gigabit network (we do with stream bundles). Wins everywhere!
The full instructions detail how to use bundleclone. I recommend everyone at Mozilla install the extension because there should be no downside to doing it.
Once bundleclone is deployed to Firefox and Firefox OS release automation, we should hopefully never again see those machines bring down hg.mozilla.org due to a flood of clone requests. We should also see a drastic reduction in load to hg.mozilla.org. I'm optimistic bandwidth will decrease by over 50%!
It's worth noting that the functionality from the bundleclone extension is coming to vanilla Mercurial. The functionality (which was initially added by Mozilla's Mike Hommey) is part of Mercurial's bundle2 protocol, which is available, but isn't enabled by default yet. bundleclone is thus a temporary solution to bring us server stability and client improvements until modern Mercurial versions are deployed everywhere in a few months time.
Finally, I would like to credit Augie Fackler for the original idea for server-assisted bundle-based clones.
When Firefox made the switch from CVS to Mercurial in March 2007, the CVS history wasn't imported into Mercurial. There were good reasons for this at the time. But it's a decision that continues to have side-effects. I am surprised how often I hear of engineers wanting to access blame and commit info from commits now more than 9 years old!
When individuals created a Git mirror of the Firefox repository a few years ago, they correctly decided that importing CVS history would be a good idea. They also correctly decided to combine the logically same but physically separate release and integration repositories into a unified Git repository. These are things we can't easily do to the canonical Mercurial repository because it would break SHA-1 hashes, breaking many systems, and it would require significant changes in process, among other reasons.
While Firefox developers do have access to a single Firefox repository with full CVS history (the Git mirror), they still aren't satisfied.
Running git blame (or hg blame for that matter) can be very expensive. For this reason, the blame interface is disabled on many web-based source viewers by default. On GitHub, some blame URLs for the Firefox repository time out and cause GitHub to display an error message. No matter how hard you try, you can't easily get blame results (running a local Git HTTP/HTML interface is still difficult compared to hg serve).
Another reason developers aren't satisfied with the Git mirror is that Git's querying tools pale in comparison to Mercurial's. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Mercurial's revision sets and templates are incredibly useful features that enable advanced repository querying and reporting. Git's offerings come nowhere close. (I really wish Git would steal these awesome features from Mercurial.)
Anyway, enough people were complaining about the lack of a Mercurial Firefox repository with full CVS history that I decided to create one. If you point your browsers or Mercurial clients to https://hg.mozilla.org/users/gszorc_mozilla.com/gecko-full, you'll be able to access it.
The process used for the conversion was the simplest possible: I used hg-git to convert the Git mirror back to Mercurial.
Unlike the Git mirror, I didn't include all heads in this new repository. Instead, there is only mozilla-central's head (the current development tip). If I were doing this properly, I'd include all heads, like gecko-aggregate.
I'm well aware there are oddities in the Git mirror and they now exist in this new repository as well. My goal for this conversion was to deliver something: it wasn't a goal to deliver the most correct result possible.
At this time, this repository should be considered an unstable science experiment. By no means should you rely on this repository. But if you find it useful, I'd appreciate hearing about it. If enough people ask, we could probably make this more official.
« Previous Page -- Next Page »