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

Renato Golin via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Aug 26 09:50:51 PDT 2015

On 26 August 2015 at 17:43, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
> Why?  This is not our policy for commits; why should it be different for
> bots?  Comments within a reasonable time window (2 hours?) sure, but an
> unresponsive owner can simply re-enable when they get around to it.  Just
> like the commit author can re-apply at a later time.

>From this comment, I infer that you don't own any bots... :)

Once a bot goes red, it's hard to make it back green again. Once it's
gone red for a few days, the time it consumes is immense. I could
spend hours describing all sorts of issues that I had to deal with red
bots picking up new failures and not reporting, but suffice to say
that reapplying a patch is orders of magnitude easier than re-enabling
a build bot, especially in architectures that not many people have. We
cannot have one decision model to rule them all.

2 hours is satisfactory for commits, 2 days would be satisfactory for
bot owners. We can fiddle with the numbers, but I'd like to give at
least one order of magnitude more to bots than to commits. Also, rarer
and slower bots get larger time-frames than more common rapid-fire

If we take all that into consideration, I think we can write up a
community guidelines for "reverting" bots and commits.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list