зеркало из https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev.git
158 строки
6.2 KiB
ReStructuredText
158 строки
6.2 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _build_sparse:
|
|
|
|
================
|
|
Sparse Checkouts
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
The Firefox repository is large: over 230,000 files. That many files
|
|
can put a lot of strain on machines, tools, and processes.
|
|
|
|
Some version control tools have the ability to only populate a
|
|
working directory / checkout with a subset of files in the repository.
|
|
This is called *sparse checkout*.
|
|
|
|
Various tools in the Firefox repository are configured to work
|
|
when a sparse checkout is being used.
|
|
|
|
Sparse Checkouts in Mercurial
|
|
=============================
|
|
|
|
Mercurial 4.3 introduced **experimental** support for sparse checkouts
|
|
in the official distribution (a Facebook-authored extension has
|
|
implemented the feature as a 3rd party extension for years).
|
|
|
|
To enable sparse checkout support in Mercurial, enable the ``sparse``
|
|
extension::
|
|
|
|
[extensions]
|
|
sparse =
|
|
|
|
The *sparseness* of the working directory is managed using
|
|
``hg debugsparse``. Run ``hg help debugsparse`` and ``hg help -e sparse``
|
|
for more info on the feature.
|
|
|
|
When a *sparse config* is enabled, the working directory only contains
|
|
files matching that config. You cannot ``hg add`` or ``hg remove`` files
|
|
outside the *sparse config*.
|
|
|
|
.. warning::
|
|
|
|
Sparse support in Mercurial 4.3 does not have any backwards
|
|
compatibility guarantees. Expect things to change. Scripting against
|
|
commands or relying on behavior is strongly discouraged.
|
|
|
|
In-Tree Sparse Profiles
|
|
=======================
|
|
|
|
Mercurial supports defining the sparse config using files under version
|
|
control. These are called *sparse profiles*.
|
|
|
|
Essentially, the sparse profiles are managed just like any other file in
|
|
the repository. When you ``hg update``, the sparse configuration is
|
|
evaluated against the sparse profile at the revision being updated to.
|
|
From an end-user perspective, you just need to *activate* a profile once
|
|
and files will be added or removed as appropriate whenever the versioned
|
|
profile file updates.
|
|
|
|
In the Firefox repository, the ``build/sparse-profiles`` directory
|
|
contains Mercurial *sparse profiles* files.
|
|
|
|
Each *sparse profile* essentially defines a list of file patterns
|
|
(see ``hg help patterns``) to include or exclude. See
|
|
``hg help -e sparse`` for more.
|
|
|
|
Mach Support for Sparse Checkouts
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
``mach`` detects when a sparse checkout is being used and its
|
|
behavior may vary to accommodate this.
|
|
|
|
By default it is a fatal error if ``mach`` can't load one of the
|
|
``mach_commands.py`` files it was told to. But if a sparse checkout
|
|
is being used, ``mach`` assumes that file isn't part of the sparse
|
|
checkout and to ignore missing file errors. This means that
|
|
running ``mach`` inside a sparse checkout will only have access
|
|
to the commands defined in files in the sparse checkout.
|
|
|
|
Sparse Checkouts in Automation
|
|
==============================
|
|
|
|
``hg robustcheckout`` (the extension/command used to perform clones
|
|
and working directory operations in automation) supports sparse checkout.
|
|
However, it has a number of limitations over Mercurial's default sparse
|
|
checkout implementation:
|
|
|
|
* Only supports 1 profile at a time
|
|
* Does not support non-profile sparse configs
|
|
* Does not allow transitioning from a non-sparse to sparse checkout or
|
|
vice-versa
|
|
|
|
These restrictions ensure that any sparse working directory populated by
|
|
``hg robustcheckout`` is as consistent and robust as possible.
|
|
|
|
``run-task`` (the low-level script for *bootstrapping* tasks in
|
|
automation) has support for sparse checkouts.
|
|
|
|
TaskGraph tasks using ``run-task`` can specify a ``sparse-profile``
|
|
attribute in YAML (or in code) to denote the sparse profile file to
|
|
use. e.g.::
|
|
|
|
run:
|
|
using: run-command
|
|
command: <command>
|
|
sparse-profile: tasgraph
|
|
|
|
This automagically results in ``run-task`` and ``hg robustcheckout``
|
|
using the sparse profile defined in ``build/sparse-profiles/<value>``.
|
|
|
|
Pros and Cons of Sparse Checkouts
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
The benefits of sparse checkout are that it makes the repository appear
|
|
to be smaller. This means:
|
|
|
|
* Less time performing working directory operations -> faster version
|
|
control operations
|
|
* Fewer files to consult -> faster operations
|
|
* Working directories only contain what is needed -> easier to understand
|
|
what everything does
|
|
|
|
Fewer files in the working directory also contributes to disadvantages:
|
|
|
|
* Searching may not yield hits because a file isn't in the sparse
|
|
checkout. e.g. a *global* search and replace may not actually be
|
|
*global* after all.
|
|
* Tools performing filesystem walking or path globbing (e.g.
|
|
``**/*.js``) may fail to find files because they don't exist.
|
|
* Various tools and processes make assumptions that all files in the
|
|
repository are always available.
|
|
|
|
There can also be problems caused by mixing sparse and non-sparse
|
|
checkouts. For example, if a process in automation is using sparse
|
|
and a local developer is not using sparse, things may work for the
|
|
local developer but fail in automation (because a file isn't included
|
|
in the sparse configuration and not available to automation.
|
|
Furthermore, if environments aren't using exactly the same sparse
|
|
configuration, differences can contribute to varying behavior.
|
|
|
|
When Should Sparse Checkouts Be Used?
|
|
=====================================
|
|
|
|
Developers are discouraged from using sparse checkouts for local work
|
|
until tools for handling sparse checkouts have improved. In particular,
|
|
Mercurial's support for sparse is still experimental and various Firefox
|
|
tools make assumptions that all files are available. Developers should
|
|
use sparse checkout at their own risk.
|
|
|
|
The use of sparse checkouts in automation is a performance versus
|
|
robustness trade-off. Use of sparse checkouts will make automation
|
|
faster because machines will only have to manage a few thousand files
|
|
in a checkout instead of a few hundred thousand. This can potentially
|
|
translate to minutes saved per machine day. At the scale of thousands
|
|
of machines, the savings can be significant. But adopting sparse
|
|
checkouts will open up new avenues for failures. (See section above.)
|
|
If a process is isolated (in terms of file access) and well-understood,
|
|
sparse checkout can likely be leveraged with little risk. But if a
|
|
process is doing things like walking the filesystem and performing
|
|
lots of wildcard matching, the dangers are higher.
|