Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> It would also be nice if the checkins list only got spammed for actual
>> compile or test failures. I'm not all that interested in getting an
>> email just because a box got rebooted or lost its net connection for a
>> while.
>>
>> In terms of checking the buildbot stat
> It would also be nice if the checkins list only got spammed for actual
> compile or test failures. I'm not all that interested in getting an
> email just because a box got rebooted or lost its net connection for a
> while.
>
> In terms of checking the buildbot status page itself, it would be
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> The bots are kicking-off so many false alarms that it is becoming
> difficult to tell whether a check-in genuinely broke a build.
It would also be nice if the checkins list only got spammed for actual
compile or test failures. I'm not all that interested in getting an
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:58:35PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
-> On Dec 19, 2007 4:33 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> > The bots are kicking-off so many false alarms that it is becoming
difficult to tell whether a check-in genuinely broke a build.
-> >
-> > At the root of the p
On Dec 19, 2007 4:33 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bots are kicking-off so many false alarms that it is becoming difficult
> to tell whether a check-in genuinely broke a build.
>
> At the root of the problem is a number of tests in the test suite that
> randomly blow-up.
The bots are kicking-off so many false alarms that it is becoming difficult to
tell whether a check-in genuinely broke a build.
At the root of the problem is a number of tests in the test suite that randomly
blow-up. I now tend to automatically dismiss failures in test_logging and
test_threadi
