[cfe-dev] LLVM IRC channel flooded?

[Jonathan Roelofs]

On 5/19/15 11:28 AM, Chris Matthews wrote:
> If “flooding” is the issue, the only long term solution is to A) have
> a bot channel that can be flooded or B) curate the list of bots which
> notify IRC.

Realistically, who is going to subscribe to such a bot channel in (A)? I 
probably wouldn't. The point is to tame the noise, not hide it.

(B) sounds useful regardless.

>
> A more fun solution would be to have the bots implement a first
> failure policy for notifications.  We move the bots to their own
> channel, then have an IRC bot watch that channel for failures, parse
> the rev, and only notify if it is the first to find a failure at that
> rev.

Ack.

>
> I agree that long blame lists are useless and should be removed. URL
> shortening would add a dependence on an external service which is a
> new source of failure and trust.

It doesn't have to be an external service...

http://lab.llvm.org:<port>/<hash>

Isn't /so/ bad, and is leaps & bounds better than the existing URLs. 
Granted, then maintaining that services becomes our problem as a community.


Jon

>
>
>
>> On May 19, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> writes:
>>> On 5/19/15 8:58 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>>>> On 19 May 2015 at 15:48, Jonathan Roelofs
>>>> <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>>> Also, perhaps the URLs should be shortened?
>>>>
>>>> That's a good idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The format could be: [botname]: [buildername] [short_url]
>>>>> ("Passed"|"Failed:" [usernames])
>>>>
>>>> The only reason to show "Passed" results is if they were
>>>> failing before, as a confirmation that whatever you did to fix,
>>>> worked. Otherwise, they're just noise.
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> [botname]: [buildername] [short_url] [revision]
>>> ("Fixed:"|"FAILED:") [usernames]
>>
>> Most (I thought all) of the bots already do the fixed failed
>> thing. There's something to be said for a consistent format though,
>> and it'd be nice if more of the bots mentioned the revision
>> (green-dragon does, but llvmbb and bb-chapuni don't).
>>
>> The other thing that would help is limiting the number of names
>> that can show up on a blamelist. If there are a hundred names on
>> the blamelist the message is way too long and the notifications
>> don't help much. The green-dragon bot just says "[n] people on
>> blamelist" instead in these cases.
>>
>>> Should the bots blame people for fixes?
>>
>> I don't think so - if you fixed it intentionally you usually know
>> it, and if not it's just another beeping window to ignore.
>> _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing
>> list cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

-- 
Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded