On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Vince Harron <vi...@nethacker.com> wrote:
> 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? > Galina should be able to answer this - I'm not sure on the exact setup, but that seems like a reasonable/right configuration. The main/only thing I care about is not notifying random contributors (or the IRC channel, which is equivalent) on a bot that's not pretty reliable (granted, my GDB 7.5 buildbot has some flaky tests in it that come up once a week or so - and I wouldn't mind being held to this bar myself, I've meant/tried to disable those at various points but never quite pushed through) - David > > > 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
