On 13/05/13 16:12, the mail apparently from Nicolas Dechesne included:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Fathi Boudra <fathi.bou...@linaro.org
<mailto:fathi.bou...@linaro.org>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to forward this thread from LAKML to linaro-dev:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.tegra/10683
>
> Seems there is lots desire for an improvement to automated build
> coverage and automated reporting along with it.
I replied to it. We've got already such daily builds with boot
testing: https://ci.linaro.org/jenkins/view/kernel-ci
I'm surprised that some people involved in Linaro and this thread
didn't mentioned it.
Anyway, it's a good opportunity to remind people that we've got a
Kernel CI and I'll be happy to get more feedback to improve it.
Hi Fathi,
I have to admit that what we do in terms of Kernel CI is still a bit
fuzzy to me, even now that I am an insider. When I was at TI and working
closely with the TI Landing team, I don't believe we ever reached the
point where Linaro kernel CI was useful for the 'products' we were
jointly doing. Now that I am at Linaro, I am going to need LAVA and
kernel CI for our project shortly. I have no doubt that what is being is
worthwhile, but I believe a little bit of marketing and/or presentation
would be very welcome. It might be nice to highlight the bugs that have
been found (and fixed?) *thanks to* Linaro kernel CI too, for example.
also in the link above all of the 7 'active' jobs are failing with 3 of
them who always failed, and 2 of them failing for 2 weeks. so it's not
clear what that means. i am sure it doesn't mean that none of our kernel
ever boots ;-) if we want Kernel CI to be useful and kernel devs to rely
on it, it should work all the time, so that failure are quickly
identified and fixed. maybe this is why Linaro Kernel CI was not
mentioned by Linaro people in that thread.
I think TI use of CI only evolved as far as compiling the thing, it's
not hooked up to any actual testing.
The error mails we are still getting spammed with are partly my fault.
Previously, LAVA would remain silent if a build failed. That is quite a
bad situation if you're committing to that tree, and the last thing you
heard was everything is good then the build machine has a problem and
stops testing. You can have committed something that broke build even,
but continue thinking everything is good because nothing is telling you
that it's not actually in test any more.
So after some prompting from me pointing out that false sense of
security undermines the point of LAVA, now we get notifications that the
build attempt failed. However since I didn't touch tilt-3.4 or
tilt-tracking for months, it's surprising the number of failure reports
we periodically get that are basically Lava infrastructure choking on
trying to build it, not any actual problems.
-Andy
--
Andy Green | Fujitsu Landing Team Leader
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 -
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
