[cfe-dev] LLVM IRC channel flooded?

[Philip Reames]

On 05/21/2015 02:05 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 21 May 2015 at 01:52, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
>> As a randomly chosen example, one thing we could do would be to have the
>> notion of a "last good commit".  Fast builders would cycle off ToT, if any
>> one (or some subset) passed, that advances the notion of last good commit.
>> Slower builders should cycle off the last good commit, not ToT.  We have all
>> the mechanisms to implement this today.  It could be as simple as parsing
>> the JSON output of buildbot in the script that runs the slower build bots
>> and sync to a particular revision rather than ToT.
> Not all slow builders have the same sources as the fast builders. For
> example, our "full" builders consider compiler-rt, while the fast ones
> don't.
>
>
>> At this point, you're long past the point I was grossing about.  I'm not
>> arguing that long running bots shouldn't notify; I'm arguing they shouldn't
>> report *obvious* false positives.
> Well, that's yet another fix we need for all builders. I think we're missing:
>
> 1. Detection of infrastructure vs. real code problems. There isn't a
> simple way of doing this, so just adding patterns to "infrastructure"
> problems being ignored, everything else is an error, would be ok.
>
> 2. Detection of different failures. If new tests fail, or the build
> fail instead of tests, the bot should email *again*. This is very
> problematic and why we're so angry towards broken bots.
>
> 3. Detection of long running failures, that might have been forgotten.
> No emails to the blame list, but an email to the bot owner would help.
>
>
>> Also, the bisect step really should be automated... :)
> It's not always simple, especially when self-hosting. If each step
> takes 7 hours, guessing what the output is and waiting 7 days to
> realise it wasn't is not a good use of resources. For those cases I
> always bisect manually.
>
>
>> You've now wasted 10 minutes or more my time per slow noisy bot. When I
>> routinely get 10+ builder failure emails for changes that are clean, that's
>> not worthwhile investment.
> I know. That's why I do that on my own bots. It's my time to spend.
>
> Maybe we should divide the bots into three categories. Fast, Slow and
> Experimental.
>
> Fast bots are everyone's responsibility. Slow bots are the bot
> owners'. Experimental can safely be ignored. That's pretty much what I
> do now with my NOC page.
>
> As a bot owner, if I want to reduce my time spend on slow bots, I'll
> have to work hard to make it fast, and not transfer the burden to the
> rest of the community.
+ 1.  I would be in full support of such a proposal.
>
> cheers,
> --renato