On 12/2/20 9:37 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-10 13:05 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 8/2/20 11:13 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
>>> I was going to start with the Beaglebone and do TFTP to load the tests.
>>
>> I suggest you start with getting rtems-run to run any of the built tests. You
>> will
On 2020-02-10 13:05 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 8/2/20 11:13 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> > I was going to start with the Beaglebone and do TFTP to load the tests.
>
> I suggest you start with getting rtems-run to run any of the built tests. You
> will need ...
>
> 1. An SD card image with u-boo
On 8/2/20 11:13 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> I was going to start with the Beaglebone and do TFTP to load the tests.
I suggest you start with getting rtems-run to run any of the built tests. You
will need ...
1. An SD card image with u-boot configured to TFTP netboot. The rtems-boot-image
tool can
On 2020-02-08 09:31 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
> >https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/amar/test1.jpg
> >
>
> That is flash. :)
Heh thanks, I set this up in August 2019 and it's been nagging at me since.
> You are not alone getting to this point. I know OAR has been setting
> something u
On 2020-02-08 06:59, Amar Takhar wrote:
I actually have a test system I started building over the summer:
https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/people/amar/test1.jpg
That is flash. :)
Made up of Beaglebone and RPIs. Eventually I will get around to setting this up
I already put a lot of work
On 2020-02-07 09:02 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Currently, the build buildbot just build the BSPs with the tests. A next
> step could be to add test suite runs as well. It is a lot more easy to
> debug failures on one of the simulator BSPs even though they are not tier 1.
I actually have a t
On 07/02/2020 08:51, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 06/02/2020 00:11, Chris Johns wrote:
On 6/2/20 10:00 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
On 2020-02-06 08:31 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
Can we enable this for one BSP from each tier 1 architectures?
Yes, can you provide a list?
The master list is here ...
On 06/02/2020 00:11, Chris Johns wrote:
On 6/2/20 10:00 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
On 2020-02-06 08:31 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
Can we enable this for one BSP from each tier 1 architectures?
Yes, can you provide a list?
The master list is here ...
https://git.rtems.org/rtems-tools/tree/config
On 2020-02-07 16:17 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
>
> Could we build an "always must build" BSP and if it builds a wider selection
> are
> built? The beaglebone black is my pick.
That's the way it already works now and has for years.
Look at the waterfall the process is:
1. Build snapshot
2. B
On 7/2/20 4:05 pm, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-06 08:03 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> I agree with what you say. (And appreciate the unfunded work.)
>> So, if this "Responsible User" email policy goes into effect, we also
>> need some additional policies for developers to help prevent the
>> "R
On 2020-02-06 08:03 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I agree with what you say. (And appreciate the unfunded work.)
Thank you.
> I still have reservations about the possibility to generate 250 emails
> all basically the same. Perhaps developers/committers should test
> every commit. Sometimes though
On 2020-02-06 07:44 +0100, Christian Mauderer wrote:
> Like already said: I'm not against sending the mails. And the situation
> is quite unlikely in RTEMS core. But we should be aware of the
> possibility before enabling such an option.
Agreed and thank you for highlighting this. While I am sur
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:20 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2020 16:03, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> > So, if this "Responsible User" email policy goes into effect, we also
> > need some additional policies for developers to help prevent the
> > "RTEMS Horde of Broken Builds" (TM) emails especia
On 06/02/2020 16:03, Gedare Bloom wrote:
So, if this "Responsible User" email policy goes into effect, we also
need some additional policies for developers to help prevent the
"RTEMS Horde of Broken Builds" (TM) emails especially from going
outside of the core developers who at least might expec
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:31 PM Amar Takhar wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-05 20:28 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > I would like it to be a single email to indicate there is a new
> > breakage. Enough to indicate "hey go take a look at the full build
> > results! something is wrong here"
>
> That's what it
On 06/02/2020 07:35, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-06 07:19 +0100, Christian Mauderer wrote:
>
>> Someone applied a FreeBSD patch directly to libbsd (which works well).
>> In that case git noted that the original author is in the "from" header
>> and send him an email that his patch has been ap
On 06/02/2020 07:35, Amar Takhar wrote:
Most likely it's a lot harder to construct a similar situation for the
RTEMS core repository. But I wouldn't entirely rule it out. Is there
some possibility to avoid such mails or do we just accept that in the
worst case someone unrelated receives mails?
On 2020-02-06 07:19 +0100, Christian Mauderer wrote:
> Someone applied a FreeBSD patch directly to libbsd (which works well).
> In that case git noted that the original author is in the "from" header
> and send him an email that his patch has been applied. He was a bit
> astonished to receive tha
On 06/02/2020 06:31, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-05 20:28 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> I would like it to be a single email to indicate there is a new
>> breakage. Enough to indicate "hey go take a look at the full build
>> results! something is wrong here"
>
> That's what it does. Breakage
On 2020-02-05 20:28 -0700, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I would like it to be a single email to indicate there is a new
> breakage. Enough to indicate "hey go take a look at the full build
> results! something is wrong here"
That's what it does. Breakage isn't always the same across builds. Waiting
un
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:26 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>
> On 6/2/20 8:18 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> > Currently emails sent out directly are limited to Joel, Chris and myself.
> > This
> > was setup during a testing phase.
> >
> > Typically what will happen is if a Builder within Buildbot changes from
On 6/2/20 10:00 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2020-02-06 08:31 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
>
>> Can we enable this for one BSP from each tier 1 architectures?
>
> Yes, can you provide a list?
The master list is here ...
https://git.rtems.org/rtems-tools/tree/config/rtems-bsps-tiers.ini
Chris
_
On 2020-02-06 08:31 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
> Can we enable this for one BSP from each tier 1 architectures?
Yes, can you provide a list?
> > Buildbot does support both Pushover and Pushjet as well.
>
> Is this like social media and that stuff? ;)
Both are apps that allow for android / ios
On 6/2/20 8:18 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> Currently emails sent out directly are limited to Joel, Chris and myself.
> This
> was setup during a testing phase.
>
> Typically what will happen is if a Builder within Buildbot changes from:
>
> Working -> Broken
> Broken -> Working
>
> It will s
Currently emails sent out directly are limited to Joel, Chris and myself. This
was setup during a testing phase.
Typically what will happen is if a Builder within Buildbot changes from:
Working -> Broken
Broken -> Working
It will send an email to the 'responsible users'. You can see a lis
25 matches
Mail list logo
