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

On 08/26/2015 09:50 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 26 August 2015 at 17:43, Philip Reames <listmail at
philipreames.com> wrote:
>> Why?  This is not our policy for commits; why should it be different
for
>> bots?  Comments within a reasonable time window (2 hours?) sure, but an
>> unresponsive owner can simply re-enable when they get around to it. 
Just
>> like the commit author can re-apply at a later time.
>  From this comment, I infer that you don't own any bots... :)
Not public facing ones, no.  My internal ones use an entirely unrelated 
infrastructure with its own set of problems.  :)
>
> Once a bot goes red, it's hard to make it back green again. Once
it's
> gone red for a few days, the time it consumes is immense. I could
> spend hours describing all sorts of issues that I had to deal with red
> bots picking up new failures and not reporting, but suffice to say
> that reapplying a patch is orders of magnitude easier than re-enabling
> a build bot, especially in architectures that not many people have. We
> cannot have one decision model to rule them all.
>
> 2 hours is satisfactory for commits, 2 days would be satisfactory for
> bot owners. We can fiddle with the numbers, but I'd like to give at
> least one order of magnitude more to bots than to commits. Also, rarer
> and slower bots get larger time-frames than more common rapid-fire
> ones.
2 days seems fine to me.  I don't care what the specific threshold is as 
long as there is one.  :)

I'll note for the record that I was describing time to response, not 
time to fix, but that doesn't really change anything
material.
>
> If we take all that into consideration, I think we can write up a
> community guidelines for "reverting" bots and commits.
+1
>
> cheers,
> --renato

On 26 August 2015 at 18:03, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:
> 2 days seems fine to me.  I don't care what the specific threshold is
as
> long as there is one.  :)
Agreed.

cheers,
--renato

Hi,

I agree with the principle but 2 days feels a bit short to me since, accounting
for time zone differences, it's closer to 1 working day. For example, an
email sent at 9am PDT arrives at 5pm BST and (assuming normal working hours)
might be read at 9am BST (1am PDT). Daylight savings can also make a difference
since timezones that use it don't agree on when it's in effect. The
owner taking a single day off is easily sufficient to go past the 2 day limit.

However, the main comment I wanted to make is that it would be useful to be able
to tell whether the buildmaster has picked up changes or not. I understand that
many changes are automatically applied without a buildmaster restart but at the
moment it can be difficult to tell when this happens.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Renato Golin via llvm-dev
> Sent: 26 August 2015 18:07
> To: Philip Reames
> Cc: LLVM Dev; llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org; Tobias Grosser
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on
clang-native-arm-cortex-
> a9
> 
> On 26 August 2015 at 18:03, Philip Reames <listmail at
philipreames.com>
> wrote:
> > 2 days seems fine to me.  I don't care what the specific threshold
is as
> > long as there is one.  :)
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev