Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2015-Aug-26 16:39 UTC
[llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9
On 26 August 2015 at 17:32, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Small blame lists can still be acquired by having more hardware. Certainly > not always possible/in the budget for those who want to verify these things.More unstable hardware is more unstable. :) cheers, --renato
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2015-Aug-26 16:40 UTC
[llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 26 August 2015 at 17:32, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Small blame lists can still be acquired by having more hardware. > Certainly > > not always possible/in the budget for those who want to verify these > things. > > More unstable hardware is more unstable. :) >I was referring specifically to the issue of long cycle times producing long blame lists. That can be reduced by having more bots so that blame lists are smaller. Even if the hardware is just as unstable this is actually better, it's not more unstable as such. It means that when it does flake out, fewer people are distracted/informed of this. That's an improvement in a small degree.> > cheers, > --renato >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150826/119d20ed/attachment.html>
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2015-Aug-26 16:41 UTC
[llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9
On 26 August 2015 at 17:40, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Even if the hardware is just as unstable this is actually better, it's not > more unstable as such. It means that when it does flake out, fewer people > are distracted/informed of this. That's an improvement in a small degree.Good point.