2018-05-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev <python-dev@python.org>: > What's the big idea of separate buildbots anyway? I thought the purpose of > CI is to test everything _before_ > it breaks the main codebase. Then it's the job of the contributor rather > than maintainer to fix any breakages.
I will answer more generally. Technically, buildbots support to send emails to author of changes which introduced a regression. But a build may test a single change or dozens of new changes. Moreover, our test suite is not perfect: they are at least 5 known tests which fail randomly. Even if we fix these unstable tests, it's also "common" that buildbots fail for "external" reasons: * network failure: fail to clone the GitHub repository * functional test using an external service and the service is down. I started to list external services used by "unit" tests: http://vstinner.readthedocs.io/cpython.html#services-used-by-unit-tests * vacuum cleaner: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-buildbots/2017-June/000122.html * many other random reasons... Since two years, I'm trying to fix all tests failing randomly, but as I just explained, it's really hard to get a failure rate of 0%. I'm not sure that we can "require" authors of pull requests to understand buildbot failures... So I prefer to keep the status quo: filter buildbot failures manually. Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
