Re: [Linaro-validation] test ran, results didn't show

On 4 May 2012, at 19:00, Andy Doan wrote: > I've come across an error I haven't seen before: > > > > The job log is: > validation.linaro.org/lava-se

[Linaro-validation] test ran, results didn't show

I've come across an error I haven't seen before: The job log is: validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/17017/log_file If you look at the

Re: [Linaro-validation] the need for three instances: production, staging and ... dogfood?

On 05/04/2012 12:18 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: So we'd have: * production: duh * staging: this is _solely_ used to determine if changes that have landed to the trunk of some component are safe to deploy to production * dogfood: random hacking I think that potentially we could

Re: [Linaro-validation] Daily Graphics WG test jobs

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:02:24PM +0300, Alexandros Frantzis wrote: > Hi all, > > the Graphics WG needs to run daily graphics-oriented test jobs > (actually, we only need to run them whenever something changes, but I > think this is not implemented yet). We had previously scheduled a daily > job

Re: [Linaro-validation] the need for three instances: production, staging and ... dogfood?

On 4 May 2012 13:18, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > Hi gang, > > As you may have seen if you actually read all the merge proposal email > you get , as part of my quest to get us closer to a continuous > delivery stype of development I've written a script that updates a LAVA > instance to the tip o

Re: [Linaro-validation] the need for three instances: production, staging and ... dogfood?

+1 for this. On 4 May 2012 07:18, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > Hi gang, > > As you may have seen if you actually read all the merge proposal email > you get , as part of my quest to get us closer to a continuous > delivery stype of development I've written a script that updates a LAVA > instance