On 8 January 2013 16:44, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Usually the best way to get traction on such things is to reply to the > commit that caused the regression. Whoever broke things is usually > more invested in making sure the change is solid (& doesn't get > reverted).Hi David, Good point. The build bot is broken for a while and I assumed the person who did that commit would spot it better than I would, but I shouldn't have assumed that the person would receive my email. I'll try to point the commit and re-send, copying the author. Sorry for the noise. --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130108/51df9b96/attachment.html>
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 8 January 2013 16:44, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Usually the best way to get traction on such things is to reply to the >> commit that caused the regression. Whoever broke things is usually >> more invested in making sure the change is solid (& doesn't get >> reverted). > > > Hi David, > > Good point. The build bot is broken for a while and I assumed the person who > did that commit would spot it better than I would,If the bot isn't configured to send fail-mail to the blame list, people probably won't notice. That's how the buildmaster/bots ended up in the rather multicolored state they are in now.> but I shouldn't have > assumed that the person would receive my email.They'll no-doubt get your email (everyone with commit rights should be on the dev list) but might not read it soon, nor realize it was their commit that caused the failure. (either because they don't remember that particular test file change, or think someone else might've touched it, etc)> I'll try to point the commit > and re-send, copying the author.Specifically replying to the -commits mailing that committed the break is the most useful - it provides the context & keeps the discussion close to the code that it's related to.> Sorry for the noise.Not a problem. Good that people are looking at these things (& I've done the same thing you've done here in the past - because I had no idea what broke & I wanted to see if anyone had ideas/cared). Are you the owner (or at least a strongly invested party) in this bot, or just interested in getting bots green generally? Do you know who the owner is? - David
On 8 January 2013 16:58, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> If the bot isn't configured to send fail-mail to the blame list, > people probably won't notice. That's how the buildmaster/bots ended up > in the rather multicolored state they are in now. >I'm supposing this is done in Zorg... ;) Specifically replying to the -commits mailing that committed the break> is the most useful - it provides the context & keeps the discussion > close to the code that it's related to. >Yup, will do. Are you the owner (or at least a strongly invested party) in this bot,> or just interested in getting bots green generally? Do you know who > the owner is? >I'm not the owner, but certainly a very interested party. I know other people are also monitoring this bot for failures, only less verbose than I am. I could be wrong, but I think Galina is the owner. --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130108/ea7a13b2/attachment.html>
> Good point. The build bot is broken for a while and I assumed the person who > did that commit would spot it better than I would,|If the bot isn't configured to send fail-mail to the blame list, |people probably won't notice. That's how the buildmaster/bots ended up |in the rather multicolored state they are in now. I think what happens from the buildbots depends on how many commits since the last build that succeeded. During peak commit time (working hours in the US) there can be 10-15 commits between builds. (Conversely it's not too unusual to see 1 commit between builds early in the morning UK time.) I think automated emails are generally only enable for bots where the average commits to be blamed is lower. Otherwise it's manual analysis, but a couple of times I've received emails from Galina when I've committed something that's increased the failures.> but I shouldn't have > assumed that the person would receive my email.> I'll try to point the commit > and re-send, copying the author.|Specifically replying to the -commits mailing that committed the break |is the most useful - it provides the context & keeps the discussion |close to the code that it's related to. Yes, although there are occasionally instances when there's multiple commits that break tests they don't touch so it's non-obvious what's responsible.> Sorry for the noise.| Not a problem. Good that people are looking at these things (& I've | done the same thing you've done here in the past - because I had no | idea what broke & I wanted to see if anyone had ideas/cared). I think the biggest issue is that if a committer is unlucky (commit just after a buildbot kicks off) it can be 2.25+2.25=4.5 hours (due to two build cycles) before the buildbot turns red. I wish I had a magic suggestion to cure that, but I can't think of any. Regards, Dave -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.