[PATCH] D120305: [Driver] Default CLANG_DEFAULT_PIE_ON_LINUX to ON

[Tom Stellard via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

tstellar added a comment.

In D120305#3347151 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347151>, @xbolva00 wrote:

>>> Given that the bot does not have a high success rate (track record) for at least the past month, I am unsure I am supposed to revert my change.
>
> What is interesting that always the patch author is the person to be blamed even when there are situations where it is so obvious that a bot has a problem. LLVM project/board should also care about buildbots and whether they work - also there should be strict policy about bot removal if maintainer does not want to spend any time to fix problems.



> It is very annoying to have unstable buildbots. One one side LLVM tries to be very inclusive and open for new people, on the other hand LLVM scares them with broken bots - first experience could be very bad.



In D120305#3347151 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347151>, @xbolva00 wrote:

>>> Given that the bot does not have a high success rate (track record) for at least the past month, I am unsure I am supposed to revert my change.
>
> What is interesting that always the patch author is the person to be blamed even when there are situations where it is so obvious that a bot has a problem. LLVM project/board should also care about buildbots and whether they work - also there should be strict policy about bot removal if maintainer does not want to spend any time to fix problems.
>
> It is very annoying to have unstable buildbots. One one side LLVM tries to be very inclusive and open for new people, on the other hand LLVM scares them with broken bots - first experience could be very bad.

The problem here is not an unstable bot.  If you look at the build log for the bot, it is very clear that this patch introduced the failures.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305