llvm dev - Aug 2015 - buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-native-arm-cortex-a9

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > *shrug* I haven't looked at whatever specific bots are under
discussion,
> but
> > I really wouldn't mind/would like if the bots had a more
"revert to
> green"
> > feel to them just like we have for commits: take a bot offline,
> > fix/iterate/improve it, see if it comes good, then bring it back to
the
> > mainline.
>
> One needs a local buildmaster (which I recommend to all bot owners),
> but might not be trivial.
>
I wouldn't mind having a separate official build master (we could have a
separate group on the main buildmaster, but I think that's insufficient -
the visual noise there is still problematic) that hosts experimental bots.

>
> But I totally agree with this policy. You have my vote. Now, we only
> have to decide how to make each individual decision as a community.
>
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150826/0f11d0eb/attachment.html>

On 26 August 2015 at 17:41, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I wouldn't mind having a separate official build master (we could have
a
> separate group on the main buildmaster, but I think that's insufficient
-
> the visual noise there is still problematic) that hosts experimental bots.
Well, but only people really interested would look there. I think this
may be a good idea, if we can make it official like we do for
reverting patches.

The only clutter I can imagine is that we'll have all bots on both
masters, and some connected to the production, others to the
experimental, with no indication in the production one why it is
offline.

A third party monitor scree, like I have, could do the trick for
separating signal from noise.

--renato

On 08/26/2015 09:41 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org
> <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com
>     <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > *shrug* I haven't looked at whatever specific bots are under
>     discussion, but
>     > I really wouldn't mind/would like if the bots had a more
"revert
>     to green"
>     > feel to them just like we have for commits: take a bot offline,
>     > fix/iterate/improve it, see if it comes good, then bring it back
>     to the
>     > mainline.
>
>     One needs a local buildmaster (which I recommend to all bot owners),
>     but might not be trivial.
>
>
> I wouldn't mind having a separate official build master (we could have 
> a separate group on the main buildmaster, but I think that's 
> insufficient - the visual noise there is still problematic) that hosts 
> experimental bots.
+1.  I think this would be a very workable solution.

Since we three seem to now be in agreement, do we want to send a top 
level RFC and actually implement this?
>
>
>     But I totally agree with this policy. You have my vote. Now, we only
>     have to decide how to make each individual decision as a community.
>
>     --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/20150826/6bbedd89/attachment.html>

On 08/26/2015 09:46 AM, Philip Reames wrote:
> On 08/26/2015 09:41 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin 
>> <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at
linaro.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     > *shrug* I haven't looked at whatever specific bots are
under
>>     discussion, but
>>     > I really wouldn't mind/would like if the bots had a more
>>     "revert to green"
>>     > feel to them just like we have for commits: take a bot
offline,
>>     > fix/iterate/improve it, see if it comes good, then bring it
>>     back to the
>>     > mainline.
>>
>>     One needs a local buildmaster (which I recommend to all bot
owners),
>>     but might not be trivial.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't mind having a separate official build master (we could 
>> have a separate group on the main buildmaster, but I think that's 
>> insufficient - the visual noise there is still problematic) that 
>> hosts experimental bots.
> +1.  I think this would be a very workable solution.
>
> Since we three seem to now be in agreement, do we want to send a top 
> level RFC and actually implement this?
Also, someone more familiar with the buildbot setup would need to write 
some clear instructions on how to do this "revert" of a bot.
Personally,
I've never touched this area and would have no idea how to even do
this.
>>
>>
>>     But I totally agree with this policy. You have my vote. Now, we
only
>>     have to decide how to make each individual decision as a community.
>>
>>     --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/20150826/07df95ce/attachment.html>

On 26 August 2015 at 17:46, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:
> Since we three seem to now be in agreement, do we want to send a top level
> RFC and actually implement this?
Yes. This is already a three-man thread. :)

On 08/26/2015 06:46 PM, Philip Reames wrote:
> On 08/26/2015 09:41 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 26 August 2015 at 17:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com
<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     > *shrug* I haven't looked at whatever specific bots are
under discussion, but
>>     > I really wouldn't mind/would like if the bots had a more
"revert to green"
>>     > feel to them just like we have for commits: take a bot
offline,
>>     > fix/iterate/improve it, see if it comes good, then bring it
back to the
>>     > mainline.
>>
>>     One needs a local buildmaster (which I recommend to all bot
owners),
>>     but might not be trivial.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't mind having a separate official build master (we could
have a separate group on the main buildmaster, but I think that's
insufficient - the visual noise there is still problematic) that hosts
experimental bots.
> +1.  I think this would be a very workable solution.
>
> Since we three seem to now be in agreement, do we want to send a top level
RFC and actually implement this?
I am not a big fan of this, as switching bots between experimental and
production would then require restarting buildslaves
and pushing them to a different bot. Also, it will be impossible to run both an
experimental and a production builder on the
same slave.

The following link hides all experimental builders:

http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console?category=clang&category=clang_fast&category=libcxx&category=lld&category=lldb&category=llvm&category=openmp&category=polly&category=sanitizer

We can add this link to the buildbot template (or just move the experimental
ones further to the right).

Best,
Tobias