This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Status of build bots?
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot ibm dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot ibm dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:55:32 +0000
- Subject: Re: Status of build bots?
- Ironport-sdr: jlPm+4vqjE4K+GtjkmrJgXLcqAxlDCTuKgBREtb8h9EKvxXPK5fkwL2Nkna8EF2D4ZvNMhw361 q+Ugaz2TDD1xquE3w+TNGwsQ4GNsyLu9C6K0pfSh/l6yFd654mTG9J6FV0dBGm+rrMya+RfKBj 1/EhtIugI66EYFa+GHBBdKE+3bgX+jq5Npmy2Ks5eNq94HfYLUDht6Cyx3OiFrhTy0s2kKhVnV rQH2vkoc7L4sqCTUwjfJ8i6X6hXo81Z7ARafTeyj6yQh2mrYl6p40yTWKzka+mGXVrqos0H8Z+ 70Y=
- Ironport-sdr: IT3rfhMRHXzt1s7SWSbKsaGQkvTk6fkfYD4hwNxUZvfy4gsALm/Grphi5/vMH9fiseclNOuwM2 FskFLvt3o1mOUKzMRUrLCxyAh/cZgop58XtbciDdXXk0fWDhiP6i0z9V2wQRGicbPRbXdbUA89 z9duVU3GbE64TzM7hF8Ov7i9ySfh3S3xgQxofisZuaa46L2iWPVY+wccOdoJdEJiFaARUIyCs8 acmTRQJqUqL4vsQXqAf6dsBAkX5kNon0we7KLbf4dfmE71vZv475cnEVQZd+cV4MCRYLyXfijU aMc=
- References: <2ea82ddf-600e-d3db-c3fd-183684d0b173@redhat.com> <ea6cfdf1a0836b22214312dfc9d0d78f7fe5bb58.camel@klomp.org> <a678133b-cbcb-aa00-6ad8-5e6a11fa765d@redhat.com> <87sgpwp2xd.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I have to admit that I have not been able to make any sense whatsoever
> of the buildbot output. Is this really something from which regular
> glibc contributors derive value? If not, why are we doing it? Joseph's
> build-only tester is much more useful to me, even though it provides so
> little diagnostic output.
I think the point of this discussion is to make it something from which we
can derive value. Which I think means:
* The normal, expected state is clean, so failures indicate regressions.
* We can readily see exactly what regressions there are at any time, and
which are new versus old regressions.
* Results get reported to libc-testresults, and someone with access to
each bot monitors its results and raises issues on the mailing list / in
Bugzilla as necessary. (That someone should probably also e.g. do routine
libm-test-ulps updates for new tests themselves, when something routine
like that allows them to restore results to clean status on a given
architecture.)
Other things, such as automatically informing the author of a patch
causing a regression without needing manual action to do that, or
providing a way for a contributor to have their uncommitted patch tested
on multiple systems, or covering lots more architectures, are nice to
have, but not necessary for the bots to be useful.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com