
Devs, I want to push to the haddock repo, to fix the build. But I can’t. .git/modules/utils/haddock/ contains [remote "origin"] url = git://git.haskell.org/haddock.git pushurl = ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* I’m on branch ghc-head. But when I push I get /cygdrive/c/code/HEAD/utils/haddock$ git push remote: W refs/heads/ghc-head haddock simonpj DENIED by refs/.* remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/ghc-head To ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git ! [remote rejected] ghc-head -> ghc-head (hook declined) error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git' No info on WHY it rejected. What now? I attach the patch if someone else would like to push. If you do, update ghc HEAD to match Simon

Simon Peyton Jones
Devs, I want to push to the haddock repo, to fix the build. But I can’t. .git/modules/utils/haddock/ contains
[remote "origin"]
url = git://git.haskell.org/haddock.git
pushurl = ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* I’m on branch ghc-head. But when I push I get
/cygdrive/c/code/HEAD/utils/haddock$ git push
remote: W refs/heads/ghc-head haddock simonpj DENIED by refs/.*
remote: error: hook declined to update refs/heads/ghc-head
To ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git
! [remote rejected] ghc-head -> ghc-head (hook declined)
error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git' No info on WHY it rejected.
Hmm, I suspect this means that you (or perhaps just this key?) don't have push permission to the haskell.org Haddock repository. We should rectify this. Herbert, could you verify this when you get a chance?
What now? I attach the patch if someone else would like to push. If you do, update ghc HEAD to match
I'll take care of this. Cheers, - Ben

| Hmm, I suspect this means that you (or perhaps just this key?) don't | have push permission to the haskell.org Haddock repository. We should | rectify this. Herbert, could you verify this when you get a chance? I'm sure I used to be able to. I know I've done this before. | > What now? I attach the patch if someone else would like to push. If | > you do, update ghc HEAD to match | | I'll take care of this. Thanks. All builds currently broken because of this.. my fault, sorry! Simon

On 2016-06-13 at 23:44:14 +0200, Ben Gamari wrote:
Simon Peyton Jones
writes: Devs, I want to push to the haddock repo, to fix the build. But I can’t. .git/modules/utils/haddock/ contains
[remote "origin"]
url = git://git.haskell.org/haddock.git
pushurl = ssh://git@git.haskell.org/haddock.git
well, that's incorrect... if you look in the 'packages' text-file at the top of GHC's source-tree, you'll notice that haddock's upstream repo is declared as ssh://git@github.com/haskell/haddock.git And you should have permission to push there. git.haskell.org/haddock.git is a mirror of the GitHub repo

| if you look in the 'packages' text-file at the top of GHC's source-tree, | you'll notice that haddock's upstream repo is declared as | ssh://git@github.com/haskell/haddock.git | | And you should have permission to push there. Oh yes, thanks -- I'd forgotten that AGAIN. I have now pushed to both the Haddock repo, and the submodule update to master. I hope that should settle things. Ben you can stand down. Simon

Hi, Am Montag, den 13.06.2016, 22:54 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
I hope that should settle things.
it does, but unfortunately, now perf.haskell.org can only give aggregate results for the joint commit: Benchmark name previous change now nofib/time/fannkuch-redux 2.838 + 3.74% 2.944 seconds nofib/time/scs 0.338 - 3.55% 0.326 seconds testsuite/expected failures 114 + 1 115 tests testsuite/unexpected failures 1 - 1 0 tests testsuite/unexpected stats 0 + 2 2 tests tests/alloc/haddock.Cabal 11811321368 + 6.40% 12567003040 bytes tests/alloc/haddock.compiler 60211764264 + 7.39% 64658444232 bytes Both the fannkuch-redux and the scs improvement are probably not interesting; both merely goes back to the state before Simon’s NUMA patch, which indicates a performance cliff (discussed at https://phabricator.haskell.org/rGHC9e5ea67e268be2659cd30ebaed7044d298198ab0) The haddock stats changes are probably genuine, I assume, but the expected value in all.T should be updated. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org

| tests/alloc/haddock.Cabal 11811321368 + 6.40% 12567003040
| bytes
| tests/alloc/haddock.compiler 60211764264 + 7.39%
| 64658444232 bytes
|
| The haddock stats changes are probably genuine, I assume, but the
| expected value in all.T should be updated.
|
I'm sad about this. My changes should have had no visible performance impact. But I'm not set up to dig into why this one patch might have had such large impact on Haddock. Presumably it's not Haddock per-se but perhaps the GHC session that it invokes.
I am not sure what to do... I'm quite reluctant to cause a 7% regression in allocation without investigation. I suppose I or someone should investigate before-and-after, but I don't have time to do that this week.
If someone felt able to have a go, that'd be fantastic. Otherwise let's at least make a ticket.
For the record, the series of patches, one of which presumably causes the regression, is below. Bisecting to the right one would be very helpful -- but you have to apply the final one (haddock-update) first.
Sigh. I should be more careful.
Simon
commit d55a9b4fd5a3ce24b13311962bca66155b17a558
Author: Simon Peyton Jones

Simon Peyton Jones
| tests/alloc/haddock.Cabal 11811321368 + 6.40% 12567003040 | bytes | tests/alloc/haddock.compiler 60211764264 + 7.39% | 64658444232 bytes | | The haddock stats changes are probably genuine, I assume, but the | expected value in all.T should be updated. |
I'm sad about this. My changes should have had no visible performance impact. But I'm not set up to dig into why this one patch might have had such large impact on Haddock. Presumably it's not Haddock per-se but perhaps the GHC session that it invokes.
I am not sure what to do... I'm quite reluctant to cause a 7% regression in allocation without investigation. I suppose I or someone should investigate before-and-after, but I don't have time to do that this week.
If someone felt able to have a go, that'd be fantastic. Otherwise let's at least make a ticket.
For the record, the series of patches, one of which presumably causes the regression, is below. Bisecting to the right one would be very helpful -- but you have to apply the final one (haddock-update) first.
I've opened #12191 to track this. I'll try to get to it although I have a friend visiting at the moment so time will be a bit tight until Thursday. Cheers, - Ben

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2016, 08:18 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
For the record, the series of patches, one of which presumably causes the regression, is below. Bisecting to the right one would be very helpful -- but you have to apply the final one (haddock-update) first.
I added a hack to the script that runs perf.haskell.org to cherry-pick this final patch if it is told to build something from that version range, and re-started the build of the affected commits. This should narrow it down. Will report back. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org
participants (5)
-
Ben Gamari
-
Ben Gamari
-
Herbert Valerio Riedel
-
Joachim Breitner
-
Simon Peyton Jones