On 1 April 2012 22:07, Andy Doan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/01/2012 08:26 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>> >>> In other words, are we really submitting LAVA jobs and not caring about >>> the >>> > results? >> >> Since LAVA: >> >> 1. Can't reliably boot all the builds in all configurations >> 2. Doesn't use linaro-android-media-create (which we tell users to use) >> 3. Doesn't use the right bootloaders >> >> We've always hand tested our builds to ensure they work. Until LAVA: >> >> 1. Can program a build in the same manner we tell users to >> 2. Doesn't assume anything about the target, like it even booting >> >> We have to keep hand testing. > > > I think even if LAVA were perfect, hand testing is still required. And I > won't (in this thread) debate the limitations your bringing up. > > In my case, LAVA has been working pretty reliably for Panda for about 4 > months now (at least for my benchmark jobs). When I saw it broken, I pushed > the issue and the team found a fix pretty quickly. So shouldn't we have > someone paying attention to at least Panda builds and raise an issue when > they trend from mostly working to completely broken?
Yeah, Panda's been pretty good. I think monitoring the builds fits pretty squarely in the new QA groups area. Paul, perhaps you can add, Android LAVA health to your daily checklist. -- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
