Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Another possibility is just having the client report "no CVS changes
detected" to the server, as a form of a ping.
I am not going to re-architect the buildfarm client and server for this.
I think what I have done will be quite sufficient. I suspect most people
will onl
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 01:55:21PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Kris Jurka wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> The settings are in hours, so this says that if we haven't seen a
> >> HEAD build in 1 day or a stable branch build in 1 week, alert the
> >> owner
Kris Jurka wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The settings are in hours, so this says that if we haven't seen a
HEAD build in 1 day or a stable branch build in 1 week, alert the
owner by email, and keep repeating the alert in each case every 2 days.
How does this know if
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The settings are in hours, so this says that if we haven't seen a HEAD build
in 1 day or a stable branch build in 1 week, alert the owner by email, and
keep repeating the alert in each case every 2 days.
How does this know if there wasn't a buil
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: 27 September 2006 14:56
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm alarms
>
> If some int
I wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It could certainly be done. In general, I have generally taken the view
that owners have the responsibility for monitoring their own machines.
Sure, but providing them tools to do that seems within buildfarm's
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 02:23:39PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> testing connect/test1.pgc ... FAILED (log)
> testing compat_informix/dec_test.pgc ... FAILED (output)
> testing preproc/variable.pgc ... FAILED (log, output)
> testing pgtypeslib/dt_test.pg
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Page
> Sent: 26 September 2006 10:41
> To: Michael Meskes
> Cc: Joachim Wieland; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm alarms
>
>
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Meskes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 September 2006 10:39
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Joachim Wieland; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm alarms
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 09:57:16AM +0100, Da
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Meskes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 September 2006 08:57
> To: Joachim Wieland
> Cc: Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm alarms
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:20:19PM +0200, Joachim Wi
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 09:57:16AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> OK, I now see just one, date format related failure:
> ...
Did you run it with Joachim's patch or with up-to-date CVS checkout? It
seems to me that you do not have the latest changes to CVS. We added a
"set datestyle" to variable.pgc tha
> -Original Message-
> From: Joachim Wieland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 September 2006 13:25
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm alarms
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 200
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> wrong to the monitoring processes - what had happened was that both had
> hung or got in an inifinite loop in ECPG-check, the machine was running
> just fine
Is this still an issue? Can you provide more information? What happens if you
r
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It could certainly be done. In general, I have generally taken the view
>> that owners have the responsibility for monitoring their own machines.
>
> Sure, but providing them tools to do that seems within buildfarm's
> purview.
>
> F
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 September 2006 03:13
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: Buildfarm alarms
>
> It could certainly be done. In general, I have generally
> taken the view
> that owners have the
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It could certainly be done. In general, I have generally taken the view
> that owners have the responsibility for monitoring their own machines.
Sure, but providing them tools to do that seems within buildfarm's
purview.
For some types of failure, th
Dave Page wrote:
>
> I'm just investigating a problem with beta 1 running on Windows 2K and
> XP, and noticed that neither Snake or Bandicoot have built -HEAD for
> nearly 3 weeks. I'm investigating why and will fix the problem, but it
> strikes me that what would be useful is an alarm email from t
Hi Andrew,
I'm just investigating a problem with beta 1 running on Windows 2K and
XP, and noticed that neither Snake or Bandicoot have built -HEAD for
nearly 3 weeks. I'm investigating why and will fix the problem, but it
strikes me that what would be useful is an alarm email from the server
to no
18 matches
Mail list logo
