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

Wed May 13 11:05:43 PDT 2015

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

What is the "rotations alias"?

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150513/2c5e64ea/attachment.html>