[cfe-dev] LLVM IRC channel flooded?
dblaikie at gmail.com
Tue May 19 10:42:01 PDT 2015
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com>
> If “flooding” is the issue, the only long term solution is to A) have a
> bot channel that can be flooded or B) curate the list of bots which notify
Alternatively: The phased builder approach Apple was upstreaming for a
while that seemed to get stalled at some point.
Or a pseudo-phased system: Have builders that do "interesting" things not
fail (but simply warn/no-result) when early steps fail (I've wanted/meant
to do this with the GDB buildbot for example: I don't care if LLVM fails to
compile on that buildbot, I know other bots will catch it - so I'd be happy
to mark that as a warning/do-not-continue rather than
error/do-not-continue, then just carry on with the next run). You miss the
efficiency gains of a phased builder, but you get the same reduced
> A more fun solution would be to have the bots implement a first failure
> policy for notifications. We move the bots to their own channel, then have
> an IRC bot watch that channel for failures, parse the rev, and only notify
> if it is the first to find a failure at that rev.
> I agree that long blame lists are useless and should be removed. URL
> shortening would add a dependence on an external service which is a new
> source of failure and trust.
> > On May 19, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
> > Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> writes:
> >> On 5/19/15 8:58 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
> >>> On 19 May 2015 at 15:48, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com>
> >>>> Also, perhaps the URLs should be shortened?
> >>> That's a good idea.
> >>>> The format could be: [botname]: [buildername] [short_url]
> >>>> ("Passed"|"Failed:" [usernames])
> >>> The only reason to show "Passed" results is if they were failing
> >>> before, as a confirmation that whatever you did to fix, worked.
> >>> Otherwise, they're just noise.
> >> Good point.
> >> [botname]: [buildername] [short_url] [revision] ("Fixed:"|"FAILED:")
> >> [usernames]
> > Most (I thought all) of the bots already do the fixed failed thing.
> > There's something to be said for a consistent format though, and it'd be
> > nice if more of the bots mentioned the revision (green-dragon does, but
> > llvmbb and bb-chapuni don't).
> > The other thing that would help is limiting the number of names that can
> > show up on a blamelist. If there are a hundred names on the blamelist
> > the message is way too long and the notifications don't help much. The
> > green-dragon bot just says "[n] people on blamelist" instead in these
> > cases.
> >> Should the bots blame people for fixes?
> > I don't think so - if you fixed it intentionally you usually know it,
> > and if not it's just another beeping window to ignore.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev