On Mar 13, 2018, at 07:50, Rainer Müller wrote:

> On 2018-03-13 13:27, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 13, 2018, at 02:43, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13 March 2018 at 05:07, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 2018, at 21:46, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Shall we backport these PRs to our buildbot 0.8.12 port?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Add context field to GitHubStatus updates
>>>>>> https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/pull/1721
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Include 'context' in the log message for 'GitHubStatusPush'
>>>>>> https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/pull/3773
>>>>> 
>>>>> That makes most sense to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok! That's working. The php-APCu commit is the first one that has multiple 
>>>> statuses.
>>> 
>>> Awesome :) :) :)
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>> 
>>>> Maybe we want to exclude some of them...
>>> 
>>> I would probably only keep the port watchers.
>> 
>> Surely we want to keep port builders, not port watchers?
> 
> Hm, but we run multiple builders per commit.

Oh right. It just seems like if a commit builds just one port, then its 
annoying to have to click on the portwatcher details, only to have to click 
another link to get the portbuilder details to see what happened. And if more 
than one port builds, then once you get to portwatcher and you have multiple 
logs to click, but there's no indication of which log is for which port.

At the moment, portwatcher can also be marked as failed because of a failed 
mirroring job, and that might be annoying. Currently, for example, any port 
depending indirectly on mesa will fail to mirror, because its python26 variant 
is broken. This will clear itself up once distfiles are mirrored first, before 
portwatcher.

> I guess the context would
> then have to include the portname or the results would be overwritten again.

That could work. I kind of don't like the tiny little box that GitHub restricts 
the status information to. It's barely wide enough to contain the context 
string, and not wide enough to show the build status string. But if we make the 
context shorter, by removing "ports-" and "-portbuilder" and maybe even 
"-x86_64" we'd have more room for a port name.

Reply via email to