>> socket.error: [Errno 111] Connection refused
>
> This looks like what would happen if you tried to use pwclient when our
> web server was down. This happens every now and then for very short
> periods of time when we do updates to various things (including
> libraries that the web server
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:28:46 -0700 Jeff Kirsher
wrote:
>
> Thanks and so far it looks like it is fixed, I will continue to
> monitor it though. I did notice pwclient throwing some errors, such
> as:
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Good news: with the logging we had in place recently (and a fix to
> correct error reporting), it looks like we've found the problem with
> parsing emails from a series. This issue was recently addressed by
>
Hello Jeremy,
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:19:01 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Good news: with the logging we had in place recently (and a fix to
> correct error reporting), it looks like we've found the problem with
> parsing emails from a series. This issue was recently addressed by
> Daniel, so I've
Hi all,
Good news: with the logging we had in place recently (and a fix to
correct error reporting), it looks like we've found the problem with
parsing emails from a series. This issue was recently addressed by
Daniel, so I've updated patchwork.ozlabs.org to run the current
stable/2.0 branch,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>> "daggs" == daggs writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> > happened to me too (not rejection), I've sent 4 patches in hope that
> > they will be reviewed on the hackathon but I don't see them in
> > patchwork.
>
>
> "daggs" == daggs writes:
Hi,
> happened to me too (not rejection), I've sent 4 patches in hope that
> they will be reviewed on the hackathon but I don't see them in
> patchwork.
I guess you are referring to these patches?
Hi Jeremy,
> Hi Daniel,
>
>> We have quite a few of these sitting in our queue :-(
>
> After a bit of time with some extra debug enabled for the buildroot mail
> feed, I see this for the failed parsemail invocations where we've
> returned a temp-fail:
>
> No handlers could be found for logger
Hi Daniel,
> We have quite a few of these sitting in our queue :-(
After a bit of time with some extra debug enabled for the buildroot mail
feed, I see this for the failed parsemail invocations where we've
returned a temp-fail:
No handlers could be found for logger
Hi all,
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 12:58:06 +0100 Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>
> Any news on this? We still see missing mails, and I even received a
> temporary bounce from the patchwork addres this morning:
>
>
> This is the mail system at host ozlabs.org.
>
> I'm sorry to have to
> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes:
Hi Daniel,
>> Andrew mentioned to me that we might have a race condition, and so I had
>> a quick poke at loading patches in parallel. Sure enough I was able to
>> easily hit an issue at least on the MySQL backend.
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:29:04 +1100 Andrew Donnellan
wrote:
>
> On 17/02/18 01:49, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for the follow-up details on this.
> >
> > I think it's worth mentioning that it seems to be a relatively "recent"
> > regression,
On 17/02/18 01:49, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Thanks a lot for the follow-up details on this.
I think it's worth mentioning that it seems to be a relatively "recent"
regression, probably within the last 6 months or so. In the past, we
were clearly not seeing such a problem, and all patches were
Hi Thomas,
Andrew mentioned to me that we might have a race condition, and so I had
a quick poke at loading patches in parallel. Sure enough I was able to
easily hit an issue at least on the MySQL backend. (OzLabs uses postgres
but it's still a good data-point as it shows we're not handling this
Hello,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:56:56 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > Can we do something about this ? We're really happy otherwise by the
> > patchwork instance at ozlabs.org, and we would hate having to run our
> > own instance :-/
>
> We've done some digging...
>
>
On 14/02/18 09:19, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Patches 1/3 and 2/3 in this series have been recorded, but not Patch
3/3.
This is really getting annoying for the Buildroot project, and we may
potentially "miss" contributions because of this: we entirely rely on
patchwork as our TODO-list, so if a
Jeremy Kerr writes:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> jk, any idea whether there's something particular about the ozlabs.org
>> instance that could be causing it to drop these patches?
>
> We're running plain upstream with regards to the parsing code; so if it
> parses we should be fine there.
Hello,
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:03:50 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> We're running plain upstream with regards to the parsing code; so if it
> parses we should be fine there.
>
> Assume the parsing is OK, there are a couple of reasons for potential
> drops:
>
> - the database server was down at
Hi Andrew,
jk, any idea whether there's something particular about the ozlabs.org
instance that could be causing it to drop these patches?
We're running plain upstream with regards to the parsing code; so if it
parses we should be fine there.
Assume the parsing is OK, there are a couple of
On 06/02/18 08:45, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Is there anything that can be done about this ? An example of
Message-Id that was not recorded is:
Message-Id:
<8027bae45d8e041c8a1e0bc714ab378ff984ded3.1517820133.git.yann.morin.1...@free.fr>
I've scraped the buildroot archives to see if there's
Hello,
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:10:44 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > Hmm, looking at the patch list, I also see that patch 2/3 in that series
> > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/852063/) wasn't correctly identified
> > in the same series as patch 1
> >
Hello,
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:33:21 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > Also, since a few weeks, we have seen that patchwork misses some
> > patches that are sent on the Buildroot mailing list. The mails are sent
> > on the mailing list, they are in the mailing list archives, but
> > patchwork
22 matches
Mail list logo