Hi David, I agree that it needs to be fixed. Thanks for communicating the issue.
I've submitted a change that XFAILs timeout tests. This should make lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake solid (fingers crossed). Will our rotations alias still get failure emails like it does now? Vince On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Vince, >> >> Maybe "experimental" is not the best word to name the group. Anyway, the >> actual meaning is a group of builders which does not send e-mail >> notifications to the blame list on a failure after a green or interrupted >> build. >> These builders are shown in the UI as usual, though, on the waterfall >> page they are at the right. The IRC notifications are sent on every builder >> status change. >> The builders of this group builds on demand only. >> I think this is not a desired behavior in this case. We still want these >> builders to build on regular commits to the dependent projects, I guess. >> This is an easy change. I'll make it as well. >> > > Thanks, that'd be great - could we disable IRC notification for these > buildbots as well? > > >> Originally, the purpose of this group is just like that - someone >> introduce a new builder, work out all possible issues and make it reliably >> green, before it gets to a pool of regular builders and gets noisy. >> The major issue with an unreliable builder is people get annoyed and stop >> pay attention to the failures. It would take quite an effort to get the >> situation back to normal. >> > > Indeed - the greater risk is people start ignoring other, valid buildbot > email from reliable builders because it gets lost in the noise of the > unreliable ones. That's why I'd be happy to aggressively mark as > experimental (or any other approach) any buildbot that's producing > particularly unhelpful notifications (email or IRC) or otherwise clouding > the feedback these tools should be providing. > > If someone is willing to put up with an unreliable builder and triage the > failures manually - they can always forward the real failures to the > mailing list, cc'ing whoever's appropriate, etc. But it shouldn't be every > developer's job to figure out whether any bot email is valid or not. > > > - David > > >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Galina >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Vince Harron <vi...@nethacker.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Before you move them, can you explain what experimental means? >>> >>> The Linux builder does have some flakey builds and I'm working on that >>> right now. >>> >>> I'm one test away from getting OSX green. I would like to see how it >>> does. >>> >>> We are doing a bringup on the android builder right now, it makes sense >>> to move that somewhere else. >>> >>> Also, it would be very much appreciated to include lldb-dev when >>> discussing lldb issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Vince >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Galina Kistanova <gkistan...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >Perhaps everything should go in experimental first & only moved out >>>> once they've got a track record of success. >>>> Yes, this is good idea. I will move them to experimental. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Galina >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:45 AM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 May 2015 at 22:52, Galina Kistanova <gkistan...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > Hello everyone, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I'm not sure I follow the discussion. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Which builder are we talking about? Is it lldb-x86_64-freebsd? >>>>>> >>>>>> A few different things are being discussed in this thread. >>>>>> lldb-x86_64-freebsd is the specific one of interest to me, but the >>>>>> lldb builders are in general unreliable. >>>>>> >>>>>> > There were 3 failure e-mail notifications related to this >>>>>> particular builder >>>>>> > during the last month. The last notification looks valid, since the >>>>>> build >>>>>> > went from green to red >>>>>> > (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/5589 >>>>>> vs. >>>>>> > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/5588). >>>>>> >>>>>> That green-to-red is almost certainly general flakiness, not directly >>>>>> related to the changes in build 5589. >>>>>> >>>>>> > ... >>>>>> > Or we are talking about all the builders in the whole "lldb" >>>>>> category? If >>>>>> > so, let's agree on how it should behave from the notification >>>>>> perspective, >>>>>> > and I'll configure it to do so. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > In general, any unreliable builder should be in the "experimental" >>>>>> category. >>>>>> > These are not sending notifications at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems the unreliability / flakiness applies to all of the lldb >>>>>> builders, other than the Windows ones which only build-test. Does it >>>>>> make sense to apply the experimental category to all of them for now? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps everything should go in experimental first & only moved out >>>>> once they've got a track record of success. (& I wouldn't mind bumping a >>>>> lot of existing builders back down to that category) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list >>>>>> llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu >>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> llvm-commits mailing list >>>> llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
