[lldb-dev] [zorg] r214540 - Fixed mergefunc builder configure; added lldb builder for FreeBSD.

[Vince Harron]

Hi all,

Before you move them, can you explain what experimental means?

The Linux builder does have some flakey builds and I'm working on that
right now.

I'm one test away from getting OSX green.  I would like to see how it does.

We are doing a bringup on the android builder right now, it makes sense to
move that somewhere else.

Also, it would be very much appreciated to include lldb-dev when discussing
lldb issues.

Thanks,

Vince


On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com>
wrote:

> >Perhaps everything should go in experimental first & only moved out once
> they've got a track record of success.
> Yes, this is good idea. I will move them to experimental.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galina
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:45 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 May 2015 at 22:52, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hello everyone,
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure I follow the discussion.
>>> >
>>> > Which builder are we talking about? Is it lldb-x86_64-freebsd?
>>>
>>> A few different things are being discussed in this thread.
>>> lldb-x86_64-freebsd is the specific one of interest to me, but the
>>> lldb builders are in general unreliable.
>>>
>>> > There were 3 failure e-mail notifications related to this particular
>>> builder
>>> > during the last month. The last notification looks valid, since the
>>> build
>>> > went from green to red
>>> > (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/5589 vs.
>>> > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/5588).
>>>
>>> That green-to-red is almost certainly general flakiness, not directly
>>> related to the changes in build 5589.
>>>
>>> > ...
>>> > Or we are talking about all the builders in the whole "lldb" category?
>>> If
>>> > so, let's agree on how it should behave from the notification
>>> perspective,
>>> > and I'll configure it to do so.
>>> >
>>> > In general, any unreliable builder should be in the "experimental"
>>> category.
>>> > These are not sending notifications at all.
>>>
>>> It seems the unreliability / flakiness applies to all of the lldb
>>> builders, other than the Windows ones which only build-test.  Does it
>>> make sense to apply the experimental category to all of them for now?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps everything should go in experimental first & only moved out once
>> they've got a track record of success. (& I wouldn't mind bumping a lot of
>> existing builders back down to that category)
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20150512/1bb684e3/attachment.html>