ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com>
Subject Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on ofbiz-trunk
Date Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:53:43 GMT
On 6/01/2010, at 10:50 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 6/01/2010, at 10:19 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>> Additionally, it'd be nice if once a failure is detected, it'd  
>>> either
>>> do an auto binary disection, to find the commit that actually failed
>>> in the list of covered revisions, or it could just try them all.
>>> For instance, if 891234 is good, and then 892765 fails.  892765  
>>> would
>>> get recorded as a state change, putting ofbiz into fail mode.  It
>>> would then try 891562, 891840, 892496, and 892599, reporting that it
>>> tried these other revisions, and noticed the error first occurred at
>>> 892496, then ofbiz would stay in fail mode, and the buildbot would
>>> keep quiet until it detects that ofbiz has been fixed.
>> I have no idea if buildbot is capable of this but you're more than
>> welcome to investigate it and request changes from infra.
> Standard open-source response, kinda expected it.  It'd still be nice
> if the request was forwarded on, if it wasn't too much of a hassle.
> If it is, I respect that, and I'll just add it to my infinite todo
> list squared.

The idea is to ask infra to do no more than is necessary (they're  
unpaid volunteers), so at the very least we (you) should find out if  
buildbot is capable of doing what you desire.
As below human time isn't free and I'd prefer it if people deal with  
infra directly if the change is important enough to them.

>> In general though I think it's usually fairly obvious what the  
>> cause of
>> a problem is based on a quick look at the stdio from the failed build
>> task.  I don't think it's a huge ask for each committer on the  
>> blamelist
>> to take a minute or two to figure out if it's their problem or not.
> Computer time is free, human time is not.  Computers are continually
> getting faster, while humans get slower.

I don't disagree that knowing exactly what revision caused the failure  
would be useful, it's just that I don't think it's useful enough for  
me to spend any time worrying about :-)

> Have you had a chance to play with git bisect yet?  It makes me feel
> squishy in my happy place.

Not yet, I don't usually bother tracking down an offending commit  
unless I'm particularly interested in what the hell they were thinking  
or if I need to discuss the whys and hows.

I'm mostly still using git as I was using svn except for heavy use of  
stash, branch and reset.

View raw message