On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:34 AM Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ sigh; now I sent it unfinished ] > > On Jul 13, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2020, at 7:28 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [sigh; sent unfinished] > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:19 AM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> Not sure who is keeping an eye on the buildbot config, but Infra has been >> looking at the buildmaster and found that we (svn) have about 14G of >> nightlies laying around since 2015 (!!) >> > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/subversion/nightlies/index.html > https://ci.apache.org/projects/subversion/nightlies/dist/ > > It seems that we likely only need (say) one week's worth of nightlies > (each is about 50M). What is the appropriate number? > > Is there a buildbot config option that is missing, that is avoiding a > purge of these files? Or does something "behind the scenes" need to take > responsibility? > > I believe Infra is likely to start *enforcing* some duration and overall > disk usage constraints. This likely won't impact us, as long as we purge > old builds according to our desired retention. So I think the more > important concern for our community is the question of "how many nightlies > do we want to retain?" ... I suspect whatever answer will be fine, but > finding an accepted consensus would be helpful. > > I'll lead with this stake-in-the-ground: > ** retain one week of nightly builds > > > +1 a week seems reasonable > > Do we only make a new nightly if the /trunk HEAD has advanced since the > last one? If so, then are you suggesting we keep the last 7 nightlies? > > > Did you happen to check if we even have a current nightly? ISTR several > months ago C-Mike had a question about building the tarball so he could try > out the Python 3 bindings where someone pointed out we post nightlies and > he could use that ... but then it turned out that the process had not been > working for a few years. > > Maybe I mis-remember or maybe it was fixed. But it could be that none of > them have any value (they are all old) and we are not even making these > anymore. > So I was just looking at the *build date* ... but Mark is right: it's totally broken. It has been building the same thing for a loooooong time. Can anybody volunteer to pick this up, and correct it? Get it building HEAD rather than $oldcrap ? Then we still have the "how many to retain?" question. I do like Mark's idea of maybe defining it as "7 builds" rather than "7 nights". Cheers, -g
