similar to: Buildbot Noise

On 5 October 2015 at 22:28, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> These buildbots normally finish under one hour, but most of the time >> under 1/2 hour and should be kept green as much as possible. >> Therefore, any reasonable noise > > Not sure what kind of noise you're referring to here. Flaky fast builders > would be a bad thing, still - so that

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 29 September 2015 at 18:22, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > This buildbot looks like it's been failing since Friday - does anyone > > know/own/care about it? > > Yes, we're looking into it. > > As you probably noticed, debugging ARM buildbots are

Hi David, I think we're repeating ourselves here, so I'll reduce to the bare minimum before replying. On 6 October 2015 at 21:40, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > When I suggest someone disable notifications from a bot it's because those > notifications aren't actionable to those receiving them. This is a very limited view of the utility of buildbots.

On 9 October 2015 at 19:02, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Where "software" here is presumably the OS software Yes. This is the real noise, one that we cannot accept. > I think that misses the common usage of the term "flaky test" (or do the > tests themselves end up other (1) or (2)?) or flaky tests due to flaky > product code (hash

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

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

On 08/26/2015 04:38 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 15:32, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What's the problem with increasing the timeout? Asking people to ignore >> buildbot mails does not seem right. If the buildbot is flaky I believe >> the buildbot owner should ensure it shuts up until the problems have >> been

I think we've hit a record in the number of inline replies, here... :) Let's start fresh... Problem #1: What is flaky? The types of failures of a buildbot: 1. failures because of bad hardware / bad software / bad admin (timeout, disk full, crash, bad RAM) 2. failures because of infrastructure problems (svn, lnt, etc) 3. failures due to previous or external commits unrelated to the

Folks, I know it's a reasonably valuable thing to have the buildbot IRC bot publishing results, but the channel is kind of flooded with the messages, and the more bots we put up, the worse it will be. I think we still need the NOC warnings, but not over IRC. The Buildbot NOC page is horrible and useless, since it doesn't know the difference between "it's red and I know it"

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

> On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 26 August 2015 at 15:44, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> What time-line do you have in mind for this fix? If you are in charge >> and can make this happen within a day, giving cmake + ninja a chance seems >> OK. > > It's not my bot.

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 (&

> 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

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

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:40 AM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > Yes, I also find the amount of bot spam in #llvm is basically intolerable. > It makes it difficult to see actual people talking. At first, I just put > all the bots on /ignore. Now I have an xchat script to move the botspam to > another tab (tabify-004.pl). I'd recommend that the bots should

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 26 August 2015 at 17:27, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > @Galina: It seems this bot is now almost permanently running into a > > compile-time > > timeout. Maybe you can fix this by either increasing the timeout or by > > switching to a

On 7 October 2015 at 15:39, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > But since nobody actually seemed interested in fixing it, I didn't keep making noise about it. I basically just ignore the failure notices from buildbot, because every commit seems to trigger multiple bogus failure notices, no matter what. That's not true, either. We (buildbot owners and admins) are

On 05/19/2015 10:40 AM, James Y Knight wrote: > Yes, I also find the amount of bot spam in #llvm is basically > intolerable. It makes it difficult to see actual people talking. At > first, I just put all the bots on /ignore. Now I have an xchat script > to move the botspam to another tab (tabify-004.pl > <http://tabify-004.pl/>). I'd recommend that the bots should just

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>

On 26 August 2015 at 17:21, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > (oh, and add long cycle times to the list of issues - people do have a > tendency to ignore bots that come back with giant blame lists & no obvious > determination as to who's patch caused the problem, if any) Yes, but remember, not all hardware is as fast as a multi-core Xeon server. Build times