Hi, On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 at 00:21, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 18:21, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 20:09, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: >>> >>>> As I write this, there are two system test builds that have been stuck >>>> for many hours, endlessly printing "shepherd[1]: waiting for udevd...": >>>> >>>> https://hydra.gnu.org/build/3153725 >>>> https://hydra.gnu.org/build/3154365 >>>> >>>> They are both on i686-linux, and on the 'core-updates' branch, but with >>>> two different build slaves (hydra.gnunet.org and guix.sjd.se). >>>> >>>> I will now abort these builds, to free up build slots for other jobs. >>> >>> I am doing bug triage and I hit this old one #33362 [1] from 2018. It >>> is about hydra which is down now, IIRC. >> >> I doubt that this bug was about Hydra. It guess that the bug was in our >> system test derivations. As far as I know, the only relevance of Hydra >> to this bug is that Hydra was our CI system at that time, and therefore >> it was Hydra that brought this bug to my attention. > > I agree, but I am not able to connect to the mentioned logs. Are the > links still working? > > >>> Does it still make sense to keep it open? Or can we close it? >> >> If the bug hasn't occurred recently, then I agree it's okay to close it. >> >> It would be good to check our modern Cuirass-based ci.guix.gnu.org to >> find out whether this failure mode is still occurring in our system >> tests. >> >> I see that Cuirass's web interface has improved quite significantly in >> the last couple of years, and I'm very grateful to those who've worked >> on it. However, Cuirass still seems to be missing some important >> functionality that Hydra had. Most notably, unless I missed something, >> it seems to lack the ability to compare the results of two evaluations >> and show the *differences* between those results, i.e. to enumerate the >> newly failing jobs, the newly succeeding jobs, and the newly aborted >> jobs. >> >> Without that functionality, it's not easy for us to notice when a job >> starts to fail, unless a user files a bug report. The total list of job >> failures has always been too large to easily notice changes in that list >> without assistance. > > I agree. Maybe Mathieu could comment more because this missing feature > is floating around. :-)
Since the initial report does not seem to have occurred recently and because the feature is not related (or let open another report), I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I miss an important point. Cheers, simon