* Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> [2011-03-22 14:18]:
> On 03/22/2011 03:59 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> And please please kick the guilty one's a**, not the buildbot maintainer's.
>> It does not make much sense to disable tests just because they fail.
> Leaving the packages as "permanently failing" is obviously not doing
> anything to motivate those maintainers.  Leaving the board red is
> *de-motivating* to the community at large, who have to wade through
> failure reports for (apparently) unmaintained packages daily while
> trying to diagnose stuff which might have been broken by changes made
> the day before.

I have to admit, I'm ignoring the buildbots completely at this time,
(even though I think that having them in place could be very valuable),
since all I perceive from them is failure-noise, and no trend of it
getting less, at all, over the last few months. (That's my gut feeling,
not based on research. It still makes me very much want to ignore them.)
So, I agree with Tres: this situation is quite demotivating.

But I also agree with Adam: I think the value of the buildbots is that
they run tests, so disabling tests because they fail feels a little like
closing our eyes shut because we don't want to see we're going to be
falling off a cliff.

I don't have much of an idea how to proceed, except maybe explicitly
reducing the scope of the buildbots to a set of packages people around
here care enough about that they want and will keep them green.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to