[llvm-dev] Build status expectations for experimental targets
Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 3 04:05:37 PST 2017
> On 3 Feb 2017, at 10:37, Dylan McKay via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
> Every few weeks, a change is committed to trunk that breaks the AVR buildbot.
> A problem presents when commit authors do not fix the build, and just leave it because it passes on the core buildbots. The build stays red for a few days until I go and check it. In the meantime, it likely causes spam for most if not all developers when they commit new code.
> All commits should keep master green, but what is the expectation for experimental backends? Is it reasonable to expect all developers who commit code to ensure tests pass on the AVR backend?
The builder isn't marked as experimental so I think the expectation is that people keep it green and contact the bot owner if they need help figuring out why their change makes it red. That said, it sounds a bit odd to have a non-experimental builder for an experimental backend.
> On top of this, is there any way to notify maintainers of a backend when a buildbot has been failing for some time? I imagine other experimental backends have run into the same problems.
I used to have all the MIPS buildbots send me an email on every failure and filter those emails into a folder. I'd then use the unread mail count to keep track of how long it's been failing and investigate if it was more than the occasional build.
If you want to do the same, then you'll need to add an InformativeMailNotifier to http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/buildbot/osuosl/master/config/status.py <http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/buildbot/osuosl/master/config/status.py>. If you search for 'clang-cmake-mips' you'll find the one I used to use.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev