[llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 26 August 2015 at 17:30, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
> wrote:
> > To say this differently, we will revert a *change* which is problematic.
> > Why shouldn't we "revert" a bot?
>
> I don't disagree, just don't want to do that lightly. Most certainly
> not before we have comments from the bot owner.
>
>
> > As an illustrative example, I submitted some documentation changes
> earlier
> > this week and got 5 unique build failure notices.  In this case, I
> ignored
> > them, but if that had been a small code change, that would have cost me
> at
> > least an hour of productivity.
>
> I have to say, I never spent more than a few minutes looking up
> failing bots. If there's nothing that I can find in 30 seconds of
> looking at the bot screen, I rely on the bot owners to ping me, revert
> my patches, let me know what's wrong.
>

Which is why this is a hard thing to fix (each individual instance doesn't
cost much) and why it's important: The pain is distributed temporally and
geographically: each of us incurs a small amount of pain regularly, but in
aggregate that's a substantial drag on the project.

- David


>
> I'll make your words, mine:
>
> > If all bot owners were doing this, having a unstable list which doesn't
> > actively notify would be completely workable.  If not all bot owners are
> > doing this, I can't say I really care about the status of those bots.
>
> :D
>
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150826/974742fd/attachment.html>