On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Zach Pfeffer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 March 2012 06:43, Alexander Sack <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:08:27AM +0200, Le.chi Thu wrote: >>> I found the problem. The init.rc in the ramdisk image (uInitrd) has >>> changed. The lava-dispatcher patch the partition tables in the init.rc >>> file. Now the partition tables have moved to the init.partitions.rc >>> file and the init.rc import that file. >>> >> >> We need to coordinate things better imo. AFAIK Zach and his team knew >> that he was changing this file, so if he would have known that this >> file change requires coordination with the LAVA team he probably would >> have done that. > > I would have given people a heads up, but I never would have expected > LAVA to have a dependency on an init script.
Right. That's what I basically said, yes. If you were super brilliant you would have remembered that we patch the partitions etc. ... but as I said above, we need to establish a better way to track which files are currently tightly coupled to the LAVA setup so we have a chance to establish a process around that ... On top, every build after a change landing should succeed in LAVA, especially if the previous one did ... we need to establish monitoring the results you see and following up deeper in your teams process/mindset. AFAIK you can resubmit builds manually, so establishing a policy that stops everything if booting a tip build fail and investigating that first, could probably be done even in the current situation. -- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
