[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] LLVM IRC channel flooded?

Tue May 19 16:23:55 PDT 2015

>Maybe these should be marked as experimental, and removed from the builders link on the main page.
>
>Never passed at all:
>libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-cxx03
>libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-ubsan
>libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-tsan
>libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-gcc
>libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-apple-darwin14-system-lib

Sorry about these bots. When I originally put them up I had hoped to
deal with the failures in short order. However that hasn't happened.

I'm happy to move these bots to an experimental section and off the main page.

/Eric

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Andrew Wilkins <axwalk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2015 at 02:55 Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Just some stats, after looking through lab.llvm.org:8011
>>
>> Maybe these should be marked as experimental, and removed from the
>> builders link on the main page.
>>
>> Never passed at all:
>> libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-cxx03
>> libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-ubsan
>> libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-tsan
>> libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-gcc
>> libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-apple-darwin14-system-lib
>> lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-android
>> llgo-x86_64-linux
>
>
> Hi,
>
> llgo-x86_64-linux is mine. Sorry, I had disabled the slave agent to avoid
> spurious emails, but hadn't considered its impact on the status pages. I'm
> fine with disabling it altogether for now; I'm waiting on a fix to Ninja to
> be merged.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>>
>> Not pass in at least a month:
>>
>> llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-debian-fast
>> clang-native-mingw32-win7
>> clang-x86_64-linux-selfhost-abi-test
>> clang-x64-ninja-win7-debug
>> perf-x86_64-penryn-O3-polly-detect-only
>> sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap
>> sanitizer_x86_64-freebsd
>> sanitizer-windows
>> libcxx-libcxxabi-x86_64-apple-darwin14-tot-clang
>> clang-amd64-openbsd
>> lldb-x86_64-debian-clang
>> lldb-x86_64-freebsd
>> lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.10
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2015, at 11:32 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:40 AM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I also find the amount of bot spam in #llvm is basically
>>> intolerable. It makes it difficult to see actual people talking. At first, I
>>> just put all the bots on /ignore. Now I have an xchat script to move the
>>> botspam to another tab (tabify-004.pl). I'd recommend that the bots should
>>> just be moved to #llvm-bots and fix the problem for everyone. Those who are
>>> committing changes can join that channel, too, and others don't care.
>>>
>>> While we're on this subject, I also find the official buildbot page
>>> (lab.llvm.org:8011) almost unusable, since so many columns are either always
>>> red, or else are so flaky that they basically randomly alternate between
>>> passing and failing. So, at a glance, it's impossible to tell whether the
>>> current state of the tree is good. (I certainly haven't memorized which ones
>>> are "supposed" to be red, and which are not. Maybe others have). Having
>>> flaky and always-failing builds show up on the buildbot pages, and notifying
>>> IRC, really has negative utility, since it not only is not providing useful
>>> information, but is serving to obscure the actual important failures, and
>>> causing people to spend time investigating non-problems.
>>>
>>> Someone gave me the hint to use the http://bb.pgr.jp/ buildbot page
>>> instead, which was a great recommendation -- that page shows problems much
>>> more clearly. But it's unfortunate that there *needs* to be a separate "sane
>>> builders only" buildmaster.
>>>
>>> E.g. (and not to pick on this particular bot, this is just one example of
>>> many):
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/27655 --
>>> passed, while the previous failed. But, it's not caused by the commit, it's
>>> just arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Or, yesterday, on #llvm: "Anyone want to give me a clue as to why this
>>> bot failed?
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/18017" --
>>> answer: because it's randomly broken. Wasted the questioner's time trying to
>>> investigate the failure.
>>
>>
>> Whenever you get crappy fail-mail, please forward it to llvm-dev, cc'ing
>> the bot owner and request the issue be addressed or the bot be removed.
>> Yeah, I know it's not an ideal process, but it's something to keep issues
>> visible/pushed on.
>>
>> But, yes, having some more formal process to deal with this sort of thing
>> would be nice (I can imagine some process along the lines of "bots start in
>> experimental and need a track record of low flake/false positive results for
>> some period of time before being promoted out of experimental so they can
>> send mail to blame lists and IRC, etc" coupled with some mechanism for
>> demoting a buildbot back into experimental if it starts behaving poorly)
>>
>> - David
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If all the flaky or always-broken builder configurations got hidden from
>>> the main pages of buildbot, and stopped sending emails/IRC notifications to
>>> anyone but their "owner", that would be a substantial improvement.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I know it's a reasonably valuable thing to have the buildbot IRC bot
>>>> publishing results, but the channel is kind of flooded with the
>>>> messages, and the more bots we put up, the worse it will be.
>>>>
>>>> I think we still need the NOC warnings, but not over IRC. The Buildbot
>>>> NOC page is horrible and useless, since it doesn't know the difference
>>>> between "it's red and I know it" from "it's broken".
>>>>
>>>> For that reason, I have built my own NOC page:
>>>>
>>>> http://people.linaro.org/~renato.golin/llvm/arm-bots/
>>>>
>>>> But that machine is too slow to cope with all bots. We may need a
>>>> project to build such a system on a larger scale.
>>>>
>>>> However, for now, I think not printing the green results in IRC would
>>>> go a long way of cleaning the channel up.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> --renato
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>