On Thu, 15 May 2014 19:14:55 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 09:40:33 -0500 > Skip Montanaro <s...@pobox.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Brett Cannon <bcan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I view stable buildbots as staying up and testing critical platforms. > > > > Would "supported" and "unsupported" (or "critical" and "optional"?) > > make more sense? "Unstable" suggests "broken" to me, not "we don't > > really care about these." > > I don't know who came up with these names in the first place. > However there's a slight nuance here: some platform may be supported, > but still some buildbot end up in the "unstable" category if it has > issues of its own (for example the machine has a flaky network > connection, etc.). And indeed there are Linux and Windows machines in > the "unstable" category.
There's also nothing stopping us from putting a "niche platform" buildbot into the stable group if it normally builds fine. I suppose it would be pretty much supported by default then, though, if it being red was a release blocker. But we could decide to ignore a red 'niche' buildbot at release time; so, I think 'stable' vs 'unstable' is indeed the most descriptive: unstable buildbots are the ones that turn red "randomly"[*], or are always red because no one has fixed whatever the problem is (which might be on the buildbot or in our code). --David [*] Yes, our stable platforms do that sometimes too, but those are test instabilities, whereas unstable buildbots fail tests other than the known unstable tests. _______________________________________________ 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
