From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: buildbots (was: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:57:12 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <86wsivy37r.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> References: <20080729222754.GC2208@muc.de> <86myjx3lt8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <48921019.6030308@gmail.com> <8663qk3g0w.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y73giryj.fsf@elegiac.orebokech.com> <86iquk1nsk.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878wvgm4mw.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <86zlnszql2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sykiguzc.fsf__45993.8457854607$1217872198$gmane$org@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <86vdygzku5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87vdyfg9fz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217944383 19413 80.91.229.12 (5 Aug 2008 13:53:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:53:03 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 05 15:53:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KQMyu-0004st-TI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:53:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51992 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMxz-0001uO-PQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:52:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMxv-0001sd-P7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:52:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMxu-0001oe-4T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:52:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48001 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMxu-0001oQ-27 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:52:42 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:35703 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KQMxt-0005gJ-Ea for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:52:41 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMxo-00023H-NW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:52:36 +0000 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:52:36 +0000 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:52:36 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 63 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fztSE1bM4DtBUEib0jEAYo46uy4= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102085 Archived-At: (subject changed, sorry I didn't do it sooner) On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:20:00 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: SJT> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> I guess I come from a background of sysadmin, where things that can go >> wrong will, so I'd rather not assume this. I've had enough experience >> with "this should never happen" happening at 3 AM. SJT> That's just an argument for never doing any testing, since *any* test SJT> could fail due to a flaky memory chip. My point is simple: redundant testing reduces the chance of false positives. How is anticipating a system failure an argument for never testing? I can't follow your reasoning, sorry. >> What I'm trying to help provide is a proactive mechanism. SJT> Then look elsewhere than buildbot, which is just an attempt to speed SJT> up the reaction. A proactive solution would be to convince the Scons SJT> people to join GNU. I think you're mistaking the automated *process* with the tools that implement it. I want to provide the former, and don't care about the latter (though buildbot seems easiest to set up). SJT> That is, this thread was occasioned by breakage that happened to *one* SJT> person, and we do not yet know what caused that problem. Since the SJT> details the OP has since given "shouldn't happen" the maintainers are SJT> almost certainly going to table the matter and wait for more SJT> evidence. The buildbots won't help with that. Buildbots provide independent verification of breakage. We will have a testing baseline, a date when things broke, and the knowledge that things used to work before that date. User reports can't provide all three with the same degree of assurance (if at all). >> My suggestion was to look for 5 or more broken build reports from >> buildbots in the community. SJT> I think you vastly overestimate the number of buildbots that will be SJT> forthcoming. It works for CPAN testers, why not for Emacs? I can contribute 3 buildbots easily, and I'm sure others can do it too. 5 is a good number but it can go down to 2 if needed. The point is to avoid false positives. >> I could go on, but the point is a broken build from a single system >> can be caused by too many factors external to the build process. SJT> Surely you can distinguish between the number of ways to go wrong and SJT> the probability of going wrong? The evidence I've seen in the Python SJT> project is that nobody has ever complained in about 2 years of running SJT> buildbots of spurious reports. The vast majority of red bots are bugs SJT> in the Python build or regressions. You mentioned the situation with Python is different. I think it's a worthwhile experiment in the Emacs community. Stefan or Chong, can you suggest a place to send the build failure reports? Ted