On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:55:41 +0200 "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > > I guess somebody would need to do monitoring on them, and ping operators > if the buildbot is down for an extended period of time. Feel free to > ping any operator whenever you notice that a slave is down (they do get > an automated email, but people can get resistant to automated emails).
Well, I suppose manual pinging can become pretty much like automated emails if it becomes frequent. (in any case, I think I've pinged Matthias at least twice on IRC, but perhaps he isn't really present on that medium, although he doesn't appear away) > Also, if you would want to propose that a different set than the current > ones should be considered stable, please let me know. I believe > "stable" was meant in a different way, though - it would reliably pass > all tests, and a test failure should be considered a bug, rather than > some random failure on the slave. I see. Well, apart from the current ones, "alpha Debian" and "i386 Ubuntu" have been quite stable. Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
