[zorg] r214540 - Fixed mergefunc builder configure; added lldb builder for FreeBSD.

[Vince Harron]

Hi David,

I agree that it needs to be fixed.  Thanks for communicating the issue.

I've submitted a change that XFAILs timeout tests.  This should make
lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake solid (fingers crossed).

Will our rotations alias still get failure emails like it does now?

Vince



On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vince,
>>
>> Maybe "experimental" is not the best word to name the group. Anyway, the
>> actual meaning is a group of builders which does not send e-mail
>> notifications to the blame list on a failure after a green or interrupted
>> build.
>> These builders are shown in the UI as usual, though, on the waterfall
>> page they are at the right. The IRC notifications are sent on every builder
>> status change.
>> The builders of this group builds on demand only.
>> I think this is not a desired behavior in this case. We still want these
>> builders to build on regular commits to the dependent projects, I guess.
>> This is an easy change. I'll make it as well.
>>
>
> Thanks, that'd be great - could we disable IRC notification for these
> buildbots as well?
>
>
>> Originally, the purpose of this group is just like that - someone
>> introduce a new builder, work out all possible issues and make it reliably
>> green, before it gets to a pool of regular builders and gets noisy.
>> The major issue with an unreliable builder is people get annoyed and stop
>> pay attention to the failures. It would take quite an effort to get the
>> situation back to normal.
>>
>
> Indeed - the greater risk is people start ignoring other, valid buildbot
> email from reliable builders because it gets lost in the noise of the
> unreliable ones. That's why I'd be happy to aggressively mark as
> experimental (or any other approach) any buildbot that's producing
> particularly unhelpful notifications (email or IRC) or otherwise clouding
> the feedback these tools should be providing.
>
> If someone is willing to put up with an unreliable builder and triage the
> failures manually - they can always forward the real failures to the
> mailing list, cc'ing whoever's appropriate, etc. But it shouldn't be every
> developer's job to figure out whether any bot email is valid or not.
>
>
> - David
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Galina
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Vince Harron <vince at nethacker.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Before you move them, can you explain what experimental means?
>>>
>>> The Linux builder does have some flakey builds and I'm working on that
>>> right now.
>>>
>>> I'm one test away from getting OSX green.  I would like to see how it
>>> does.
>>>
>>> We are doing a bringup on the android builder right now, it makes sense
>>> to move that somewhere else.
>>>
>>> Also, it would be very much appreciated to include lldb-dev when
>>> discussing lldb issues.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Vince
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Perhaps everything should go in experimental first & only moved out
>>>> once they've got a track record of success.
>>>> Yes, this is good idea. I will move them to experimental.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Galina
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:45 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11 May 2015 at 22:52, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Hello everyone,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm not sure I follow the discussion.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Which builder are we talking about? Is it lldb-x86_64-freebsd?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few different things are being discussed in this thread.
>>>>>> lldb-x86_64-freebsd is the specific one of interest to me, but the
>>>>>> lldb builders are in general unreliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > There were 3 failure e-mail notifications related to this
>>>>>> particular builder
>>>>>> > during the last month. The last notification looks valid, since the
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> > went from green to red
>>>>>> > (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/5589
>>>>>> vs.
>>>>>> > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/5588).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That green-to-red is almost certainly general flakiness, not directly
>>>>>> related to the changes in build 5589.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>> > Or we are talking about all the builders in the whole "lldb"
>>>>>> category? If
>>>>>> > so, let's agree on how it should behave from the notification
>>>>>> perspective,
>>>>>> > and I'll configure it to do so.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > In general, any unreliable builder should be in the "experimental"
>>>>>> category.
>>>>>> > These are not sending notifications at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems the unreliability / flakiness applies to all of the lldb
>>>>>> builders, other than the Windows ones which only build-test.  Does it
>>>>>> make sense to apply the experimental category to all of them for now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps everything should go in experimental first & only moved out
>>>>> once they've got a track record of success. (& I wouldn't mind bumping a
>>>>> lot of existing builders back down to that category)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150512/2519aeac/attachment.html>