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

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Aug 26 10:03:34 PDT 2015

On 08/26/2015 09:50 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
> 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... :)
Not public facing ones, no.  My internal ones use an entirely unrelated 
infrastructure with its own set of problems.  :)
> 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
> ones.
2 days seems fine to me.  I don't care what the specific threshold is as 
long as there is one.  :)

I'll note for the record that I was describing time to response, not 
time to fix, but that doesn't really change anything material.
> If we take all that into consideration, I think we can write up a
> community guidelines for "reverting" bots and commits.
> cheers,
> --renato

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list