search for: greenbots

Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 18:10, David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >> From other discussion, it sounds like at least some people are open to >> asm tests under clang. I think that should be fine. But there are >> probably other kinds of end-to-end tests that should not live under >> clang. > >

One strategy I use for our flaky bots is to have them email me only. If the failure is real, then I forward the email to who ever I find on the blame list. For a flaky build, this is least you can do. For our flaky builds I know how and why they are flaky, some person that gets email does not. This is also a great motivator to help me know what is wrong, and how to fix it. By default, all new

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2015 at 18:59, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We have *not* appointed any such committee at this point. >> (...) >> The appeal is to the board of the Foundation. I don't expect the board to >>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:55 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 13 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > If you have questions, please see feel free to contact the LLVM > Foundation Code of Conduct Advisory Committee by emailing conduct at llvm.org > . > > My main

Renato Golin via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > I'd recommend trying to move any e2e tests into the test-suite and > make it easier to run, and leave specific tests only in the repo (to > guarantee independence of components). That would be a shame. Where is test-suite run right now? Are there bots? How are regressions reported? > The last thing we want

...ed revision, and >> trigger most other builds from those. > > This would be the perfect world. We should move towards getting this setup then. There is some code that needs to be setup in buildbot, as well as an agreement on what gets attached to what. > > When Apple moved to GreenBots, I was expecting that we'd be moving too > not long after. I was also expecting the LLVM Foundation to be driving > this change, and I'd have dived head first to have what you have. > > But it makes no sense for me to do that on my own, locally. Nor I have > bandwidth or res...

Hi, Given David's comments about an echo-chamber, I thought I might as well throw my oar in and say I'm strongly in favour of this. I'm not particularly fussed on the wordsmithing or the verbosity. In fact one of the (unfortunate) primary uses of this document surely will be as reference when a misbehavior occurs, so spelling at least some things out in full might be useful in that

On 7 October 2015 at 22:44, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is a poor analogy. You're also ignoring the solution I gave you > in my previous mail for slow bots. I'm not ignoring it, I'm acting upon it. But it takes time. I don't have infinite resources. > If you can't give some basic stability guarantees then the bot > is only

Folks, David has been particularly militant with broken buildbots recently, so to make sure we don't throw the baby with the bath water, I'd like to propose some changes on how we deal with the emails on our *current* buildmaster, since there's no concrete plans to move it to anything else at the moment. The main issue is that managing the buildbots is not a simple task. It requires