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

Wed May 13 10:44:45 PDT 2015

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Vince Harron <vince at nethacker.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Galina should be able to answer this - I'm not sure on the exact setup, but
that seems like a reasonable/right configuration. The main/only thing I
care about is not notifying random contributors (or the IRC channel, which
is equivalent) on a bot that's not pretty reliable (granted, my GDB 7.5
buildbot has some flaky tests in it that come up once a week or so - and I
wouldn't mind being held to this bar myself, I've meant/tried to disable
those at various points but never quite pushed through)

- David

>
>
> 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/20150513/e9c36581/attachment.html>