Small note, you can control emails sent by builder.
For example, I did not include my experimental builders in the email
notification.
By the same token, you could add a custom notifier for any experimental
builder that you individually want to watch without going to a web site.
The remaining problem is that the experimental builder failures appear
on lab.llvm.org:8011.
Rick
InformativeMailNotifier(
fromaddr = "llvm.buildmas...@lab.llvm.org",
sendToInterestedUsers= False,
extraRecipients =
["rf...@codeaurora.org","llvm.buildmas...@quicinc.com"],
subject="Build %(builder)s Failure",
mode = "failing",
b*uilders = ["llvm-hexagon-elf","clang-hexagon-elf"],*
addLogs=False,
num_lines = 15),
On 05/14/2015 04:38 AM, Tamas Berghammer wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Galina Kistanova
<gkistan...@gmail.com <mailto:gkistan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Will our rotations alias still get failure emails like it does now?
...
> Galina should be able to answer this
What is the "rotations alias"?
From the buildbot perspective it is an additional e-mail address where
it sends a notification for each failed build (based on
an InformativeMailNotifier
in buildbot/osuosl/master/config/status.py:125). It is a special
e-mail address what will forward the failure notification to the right
people inside the LLDB team at Google based on some settings but it
isn't effect the way the buildbot have to handle it.
> 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 <mailto:dblai...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Vince Harron
<vi...@nethacker.com <mailto: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 <mailto:dblai...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Galina Kistanova
<gkistan...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:dblai...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Ed
Maste <ema...@freebsd.org
<mailto:ema...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 22:52, Galina
Kistanova <gkistan...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu
<mailto:llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu <mailto: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
--
Rick Foos
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
