Hello,
What do you think of creating a "buildbot" category in the tracker? There are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but there's
nowhere to do so.
Regards
Antoine.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
> What do you think of creating a "buildbot" category in the tracker? There are
> often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but there's
> nowhere to do so.
Do you have any specific reports that you would want to classify with
this category?
Regards,
Martin
___
On 02:30 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hello,
What do you think of creating a "buildbot" category in the tracker?
There are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but
there's
nowhere to do so.
Is your idea that this would be for tracking issues with the *bots*
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM, wrote:
> On 02:30 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> What do you think of creating a "buildbot" category in the tracker? There
>> are
>> often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track, but
>> there's
>> nowhere to do so.
>
> Is yo
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 at 19:41, Jesse Noller wrote:
Then again, I know for a fact certain tests fail ONLY on certain
buildbots because of the way they're configured. For example, certain
multiprocessing tests will fail if /dev/shm isn't accessible on Linux,
and several of the buildbosts are in tigh
On 29 Oct, 11:41 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM, wrote:
On 02:30 pm, solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hello,
What do you think of creating a "buildbot" category in the tracker?
There
are
often problems on specific buildbots which would be nice to track,
but
there
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> I'd say that particular one is a bug in the tests. If /dev/shm is
> not available and is required, then the tests should be skipped with
> an appropriate message. It would also secondarily be an issue with
> the buildbot fleet, since mul
Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
>
>> I'd say that particular one is a bug in the tests. If /dev/shm is
>> not available and is required, then the tests should be skipped with
>> an appropriate message. It would also secondarily be an issue with
>
> But the real reason for having a buildbot category (or at least a keyword)
> would be to be able to tag all bugs that are currently making buildbots
> fail that are _not_ the result of a recent checkin. This would make
> the task of finding the bugs that need to be cleaned up to stabilize
> the
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I'm confused: first you said they fail, now you say they get skipped.
> Which one is it? I agree with R. David's analysis: if they fail, it's
> a multiprocessing bug, if they get skipped, it's a flaw in the build
> slave configuration (b
On 12:55 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
I'm confused: first you said they fail, now you say they get skipped.
Which one is it? I agree with R. David's analysis: if they fail, it's
a multiprocessing bug, if they get skipped, it's a flaw in
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 at 08:55, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
I'm confused: first you said they fail, now you say they get skipped.
Which one is it? I agree with R. David's analysis: if they fail, it's
a multiprocessing bug, if they get skipped, it'
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM, wrote:
> On 12:55 pm, jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm confused: first you said they fail, now you say they get skipped.
>>> Which one is it? I agree with R. David's analysis: if they fail, i
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 at 09:57, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
But the real reason for having a buildbot category (or at least a keyword)
would be to be able to tag all bugs that are currently making buildbots
fail that are _not_ the result of a recent checkin. This would make
the task of finding the bu
twistedmatrix.com> writes:
>
> Is your idea that this would be for tracking issues with the *bots*
> themselves? That is, not just for tracking cases where some test method
> fails on a particular bot, but for tracking cases where, say, a bot's
> host has run out of disk space and cannot run
> Well the general situation would be slightly easier to appreciate if there
> was a
> public medium where buildbot info was exchanged, announcements done, and
> problems tracked. Some kind of tracker, tracker keyword, mailing-list, or
> anything else.
As for the tracker keyword - I created one (
> How about:
> "indicates that related test failures are causing buildbot
> instability"
Ok, changed!
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.or
17 matches
Mail list logo
