PSA: glibc buildbot slave up for aarch64

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Friday 28 April 2017 09:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Well, you could have an orthogonal measure of port status distinct from 
> "are there regressions yet to be analysed", without hiding new regressions 
> because of an always-present failure.

Hmm, we could do that by marking regressions that we XFAIL with a
keyword in bz, say testsuite-xfail.  If it sounds like a good idea then
can someone with bz access add a keyword? I can then come up with a
script to get a report from bz and have it emailed to lic-alpha on a
weekly basis.

> It achieves that everyone testing on a platform doesn't need to rediscover 
> for themselves what is or is not a known failure.  It achieves that 
> distributors don't all need to replicate the same list of known failures 
> locally.  It achieves that when a regression occurs on a platform it 
> actually becomes visible in the results of buildbots rather than being 
> hidden by an old known failure.

I don't disagree, just that I think we need something more than XFAIL.
An xfail weekly spam report ought to bridge that gap.

Siddhesh