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: Re: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this? Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:38:58 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <86vdygzku5.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217874894 5310 80.91.229.12 (4 Aug 2008 18:34:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:34:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 04 20:35:44 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 1KQ4u3-00030a-1X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:35:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42596 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ4t8-0008DF-1M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:34:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ4t0-0008CO-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:34:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ4sy-0008Bq-FS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:34:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53418 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ4sy-0008Bn-7C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:34:24 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:48086 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 1KQ4sx-0008PT-Fg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:34:24 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KQ4su-00043P-SM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:34:20 +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 ; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:34:20 +0000 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:34:20 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 69 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:S/EW9mQwArQyxpU7xlZHSrVTCl0= 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:102055 Archived-At: On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:49:01 +0000 (UTC) "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: SJT> Ted Zlatanov writes: SJT> Romain's right, you don't need confirmation. If a clean build breaks, SJT> it's broke. What to do about it is another question. >> >> Builds can break for many reasons, some local (e.g. disk full). Why >> bother many people with a false report? SJT> Because they don't happen much in practice on well-maintained 'bots, SJT> which is what you want. 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. >> It would condition them to ignore truly broken builds. SJT> Excuse me, but isn't the problem that they already do?? (Yes, I know SJT> that's specious. It's still true. Fix the bigger problem first. :-) No. You're confusing issues. What I'm trying to help provide is a proactive mechanism. The current broken build detection is reactive: users report busted builds or developers find out when they do a build. So broken builds just don't emerge as a problem quickly. SJT> XEmacs and SXEmacs see *way* fewer "broken build" reports, and when SJT> we do, the response is almost always that the responsible developer SJT> pipes up with "oops, my bad, fixed" within 24 hours. I've *never* SJT> seen the kind of "Did you wait until the goat died? You can't SJT> start the build before the sacrificial goat is dead!" threads that SJT> are so common on emacs-devel. Well, maybe that will change when we can identify the change that broke the builds. I am not trying to change social dynamics, regardless. It's neither my target nor my interest, and the Emacs maintainers should address that side of the process. SJT> If there is a 'bot spewing because of disk full, sentence the 'bot SJT> owner to some public service like reading the entire Collected Works SJT> of Richard Stallman (including the source code to all his programs) SJT> out loud at the main gate of Microsoft. SJT> If and when the rate of disk full reports reaches 10% of the rate of SJT> genuine breakage, start forwarding them as bug reports to buildbot. I was giving an example. By definition you can't anticipate every failure mode, so I'd rather not assume builds will always work. Here's some other causes: transient network outage, missing/broken libraries, misconfiguration, race conditions, OS limitations, ACLs, memory/CPU usage limits, swap space/process table/memory exhaustion, power outage, filesystem corruption... 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> Also, it shouldn't be hard to construct a filter that recognizes SJT> such and pings the 'bot owner. If you have access to the Mailman SJT> pipeline, it can easily be installed in the list config (ie, without SJT> risk to other Mailman lists) and set up to ping only interested SJT> parties, and not forward it to the list. My suggestion was to look for 5 or more broken build reports from buildbots in the community. I think that's better than the workarounds you suggest, because it's not dependent on anything other than agreement between separate systems. Your solution recognizes potential failure modes *after* they occur and works backwards after the annoyance has already happened. Ted