This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Status of build bots?
On 20/08/19 2:28 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> We really need functioning build bots for all major targets:
>
> * x86_64 / i686
> * aarch64 / arm
> * s390x / s390
> * ppc32 / ppc64 / ppc64le
>
> It would be great if we got s390x backup and running.
>
> In the meantime we need to cleanup the results and move
> from "purely informative" to "an active part of our process"
> and assigning maintainership to the various build bots in
> case one fails, along with turning on nag mails for the user
> that broke the bot, and then using that to discuss fixes.
>
> We should take that fundamental next step so that the build
> bots are really useful at catching issues across distros and
> machines (just like build-many-glibcs catches other kinds of
> problems).
Agreed. The way most projects handle this is to have not only
per-commit builds (and emails/messages whenever a build fails) but also
per patch submission build and test. I suppose we can set up mail
notifications to libc-alpha right away but ideally we want to get to a
point of doing all of this within a gitlab/phabricator like framework so
that the list doesn't get too noisy.
Maybe I should dust up my changelog automation patchset again because
the ChangeLog format is an obvious hurdle to all this. The last state
there was that of bewilderment from the gnulib community because I
wasn't able to clearly communicate to them the need for changelog
automation and how it is different from the changelog skeleton
generation scripts they already use.
Has anything changed since? We still need changelog automation right?
Sorry I've been a bit out of the loop lately.
Siddhesh