>> Will our rotations alias still get failure emails like it does now? ... > Galina should be able to answer this
What is the "rotations alias"? > could we disable IRC notification for these buildbots as well? I will disable IRC notifications for experimental bots today, if everything will go well. Thanks Galina On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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
