From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14280 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2017 15:06:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 14258 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2017 15:06:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=september, September, monitored, quality X-HELO: mail-qk0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f173.google.com) (209.85.220.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:06:53 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b123so10686025qkg.7 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:06:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3f8hNWCaJ2/XDTEN9YuEx4BdtrJMdeQ6r51pUe7ULbs=; b=X/8aZ7I7wNr7oQZfiCdTwZEbX/tJmMumoNwILZYmFP4PZBXFV88dIbBK2qY2EIeREs X+mFx6GVi2XpUvEN0qKe5bI7UvNzMV2poH9PJLmXuue7GtSY48bVpN5CiR26JqBsSZhk 9AMjpdwjidsDWDusmg9p2qJ2wrKfpRT9Dhp9BzHhv0DKJmT7qpH3lbmBbPn2WUxKDI/D No28SX+Y8mlMND6NRQr8jaZWvJZtijt/jXsSDJD0Zl3tpWN0peqY+2TGgrxfRCKuZLnH zvqWArXF43eOzPmilLIbmD9Z0wf1bH40LYliJsVjtq2r8a6idOj6EfwFMf5tMz8w75NQ jrPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIUOaZSVdKjcQfEyQVVhkyoveKLM5ZY7meG9ly8CM55qzmSF4z+ W7SSgmRQYFpwlc/nt5chYWxars5WRxU2U8/ERBY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosiIJiPoCL4pwLTa1rR3WLJAZMZgR9ZtjRiY3ESFdyAvM9rPTbPIW6kXqJfDub89eSTxVqKAQYNo4N899oSY3w= X-Received: by 10.55.23.24 with SMTP id i24mr21936773qkh.181.1513350411283; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:06:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.196.134 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:06:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3808c9ac-450e-3d53-d5c6-ddd7f4b8d1df@redhat.com> References: <87d13g6r5t.fsf@redhat.com> <878te46pk4.fsf@redhat.com> <3808c9ac-450e-3d53-d5c6-ddd7f4b8d1df@redhat.com> From: David Edelsohn Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [BuildBot] Notifications disabled for Debian-s390x-* and Fedora-ppc64*-* builders To: Pedro Alves Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior , GDB Patches , Edjunior Machado Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 12/15/2017 02:34 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> I believe that the GDB buildbots should be useful to the GDB community >> and I appreciate your efforts to maintain it. >> >> But the irony in your message should not be ignored. You implicitly >> express that the buildbots are ignored, except possibly x86 and Try >> Builds on x86, while you proceed to ask for additional participation. >> This is fundamentally inconsistent. Actions speak louder than words >> and this demonstrates the priorities of the GDB community. > > I think there must be some misunderstanding here. IIUC, the problem with > the builders is not related at all to the quality of the PPC64 or s390 > gdb ports. The problems are something else beyond GDB's control, they're > network, oversubscription, etc. problems, something like that. The builder > machines have simply not been able to exercise their basic function stably > enough, in turn causing problems for developers, instead of helping. What > can the community, as in, GDB maintainers, do, then? I for one have no > idea what I (just a developer) can do here. I think that the best course > of action is to disable reporting while investigations proceed, which I > understood it being exactly what is being done here. I don't think > Sergio deserved the reaction. This is an incorrect analysis of the problem and the status. First, a problem with the buildbot that started in September should not be reported and addressed in December. That clearly shows that the community is ignoring the buildbots (at least for targets other than x86). Second, the s390 VM is not under-sized and should be equivalent to any x86 VM running a buildslave. Third, the testsuite summaries that no one from the GDB community monitored show that the testsuite runtime jumped from a relatively short amount of time to over 9 hours for each run, which points to a newly introduced problem in GDB or in the testsuite (timeouts?). Fourth, the same s390 VM runs buildbots for other projects, such as Python, that were not adversely affected and have not seen a huge jump in cycle time or delays. Again, everything points to a problem in GDB, its testsuite, or its infrastructure, not in the buildslave. Yes, it's ironic to announce that annoying warning emails of problems will not be ignored while asking for more resources and participation. Thanks, David