[llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 26 August 2015 at 17:30, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
> To say this differently, we will revert a *change* which is problematic.
> Why shouldn't we "revert" a bot?

I don't disagree, just don't want to do that lightly. Most certainly
not before we have comments from the bot owner.


> As an illustrative example, I submitted some documentation changes earlier
> this week and got 5 unique build failure notices.  In this case, I ignored
> them, but if that had been a small code change, that would have cost me at
> least an hour of productivity.

I have to say, I never spent more than a few minutes looking up
failing bots. If there's nothing that I can find in 30 seconds of
looking at the bot screen, I rely on the bot owners to ping me, revert
my patches, let me know what's wrong.

I'll make your words, mine:

> If all bot owners were doing this, having a unstable list which doesn't
> actively notify would be completely workable.  If not all bot owners are
> doing this, I can't say I really care about the status of those bots.

:D

cheers,
--renato