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

Thu May 14 02:38:44 PDT 2015

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Will our rotations alias still get failure emails like it does now?
> ...
> > Galina should be able to answer this
>
> What is the "rotations alias"?
>

>From the buildbot perspective it is an additional e-mail address where it
sends a notification for each failed build (based on
an InformativeMailNotifier in buildbot/osuosl/master/config/status.py:125).
It is a special e-mail address what will forward the failure notification
to the right people inside the LLDB team at Google based on some settings
but it isn't effect the way the buildbot have to handle it.

> > could we disable IRC notification for these buildbots as well?
>
> I will disable IRC notifications for experimental bots today, if
> everything will go well.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galina
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Vince Harron <vince at nethacker.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I agree that it needs to be fixed.  Thanks for communicating the issue.
>>>
>>> I've submitted a change that XFAILs timeout tests.  This should make
>>> lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake solid (fingers crossed).
>>>
>>> Will our rotations alias still get failure emails like it does now?
>>>
>>
>> Galina should be able to answer this - I'm not sure on the exact setup,
>> but that seems like a reasonable/right configuration. The main/only thing I
>> care about is not notifying random contributors (or the IRC channel, which
>> is equivalent) on a bot that's not pretty reliable (granted, my GDB 7.5
>> buildbot has some flaky tests in it that come up once a week or so - and I
>> wouldn't mind being held to this bar myself, I've meant/tried to disable
>> those at various points but never quite pushed through)
>>
>> - David
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vince
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:27 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Vince,
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe "experimental" is not the best word to name the group. Anyway,
>>>>> the actual meaning is a group of builders which does not send e-mail
>>>>> notifications to the blame list on a failure after a green or interrupted
>>>>> build.
>>>>> These builders are shown in the UI as usual, though, on the waterfall
>>>>> page they are at the right. The IRC notifications are sent on every builder
>>>>> status change.
>>>>> The builders of this group builds on demand only.
>>>>> I think this is not a desired behavior in this case. We still want
>>>>> these builders to build on regular commits to the dependent projects, I
>>>>> guess. This is an easy change. I'll make it as well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that'd be great - could we disable IRC notification for these
>>>> buildbots as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Originally, the purpose of this group is just like that - someone
>>>>> introduce a new builder, work out all possible issues and make it reliably
>>>>> green, before it gets to a pool of regular builders and gets noisy.
>>>>> The major issue with an unreliable builder is people get annoyed and
>>>>> stop pay attention to the failures. It would take quite an effort to get
>>>>> the situation back to normal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed - the greater risk is people start ignoring other, valid
>>>> buildbot email from reliable builders because it gets lost in the noise of
>>>> the unreliable ones. That's why I'd be happy to aggressively mark as
>>>> experimental (or any other approach) any buildbot that's producing
>>>> particularly unhelpful notifications (email or IRC) or otherwise clouding
>>>> the feedback these tools should be providing.
>>>>
>>>> If someone is willing to put up with an unreliable builder and triage
>>>> the failures manually - they can always forward the real failures to the
>>>> mailing list, cc'ing whoever's appropriate, etc. But it shouldn't be every
>>>> developer's job to figure out whether any bot email is valid or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Galina
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Vince Harron <vince at nethacker.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150514/6c774597/attachment.html>