Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-26 Thread Sergio Ahumada
Hi, On 10/26/2012 01:20 PM, Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > The nice thing about bots is they don't completely block integration. It's an > adjunct: if it decides not to work one day, it's not such a crisis. So maybe > we could use more of those and less of the kind of CI testing that does block > it

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-26 Thread Shawn Rutledge
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:45:14AM +1000, Rohan McGovern wrote: > Personally I think the logical next step, which could be implemented > in parallel to the current setup without drastic new hardware purchases, > would be to provide a service where changes in gerrit can be submitted > for testing se

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Rohan McGovern
Shawn Rutledge said: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:00:47PM +1000, Rohan McGovern wrote: > > Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the > > same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go > > unanswered... > > > > > steveire> [06:32:44] CI is seriously

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Charley Bay
Shawn Rutledge spaketh: > Personally I think the fundamental problem which CI could do better is to > triage problems. , > > I think when a test fails, the CI system should try to break down the > patch set in some way. For example it could divide the patch set in half, > arbitrarily, and see if

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Shawn Rutledge
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:00:47PM +1000, Rohan McGovern wrote: > Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the > same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go > unanswered... > > > steveire> [06:32:44] CI is seriously depresssing. For the last 24 hou

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Simon Hausmann
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 02:32:49 PM Lincoln Ramsay wrote: > On 25/10/12 13:00, Rohan McGovern wrote: > > True, there used to be Nokia employees reading every failure report and > > chasing up apparently unstable tests, either trying to fix the tests, or > > acknowledge them via bug reports an

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-25 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 13:00:47 Rohan McGovern wrote: > Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the > same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go > unanswered... > > jpnurmi> [07:30:23] steveire: np, those tests have been annoying me > > se

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-24 Thread Turunen Tuukka
On 25.10.2012 7.32, "Lincoln Ramsay" wrote: >I'm pretty sure there's someone at Digia ready to take over maintenance >of the CI system. However, there isn't (to my knowledge) anyone ready to >take on the task of keeping Qt in a state that can pass through the CI >system. If nobody steps up to t

Re: [Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-24 Thread Lincoln Ramsay
On 25/10/12 13:00, Rohan McGovern wrote: > True, there used to be Nokia employees reading every failure report and > chasing up apparently unstable tests, either trying to fix the tests, or > acknowledge them via bug reports and marking them insignificant. > Those people are gone and the test resul

[Development] On the reliability of CI

2012-10-24 Thread Rohan McGovern
Replying here to some comments on IRC, since I'm rarely online at the same time as the others, but I don't want to let all the comments go unanswered... > steveire> [06:32:44] CI is seriously depresssing. For the last 24 hours > there has been one successful merge. Many of the others are failing >