public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>,
	GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
		Edjunior Machado <emachado@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [BuildBot] Notifications disabled for Debian-s390x-* and Fedora-ppc64*-* builders
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:40:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGWvnymz0m3SFxFGiFntt25oThJv5gTHtzqKWYHnA=zioP8V+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH=s-PNZYTurSDyapjWW3Q0kLvcdhoiNMuLYhiFNsdsje-+w0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:34 PM, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> How do you get such implicit message?  That is your bias.  We still have
> aarch64 and aarch32 buildslaves, they are quite stable, and catches
> some build failures with g++ 4.8 and regressions.
>
> These builders are disabled because they are useless.  Sergio asks for
> participation to make these builders useful.  If no one wants to make these
> builders better, or cares about them, it is reasonable to disable them.  It
> is equivalent to code/feature/port deprecation, if nobody maintains the
> code/feature/port, we'll deprecate it.
>
>> This is fundamentally inconsistent.  Actions speak louder than words
>> and this demonstrates the priorities of the GDB community.
>
> I don't see the inconsistency here.  We need more participation or contribution
> to make these builders more useful, it is simple, isn't?

The buildbots are the responsibility of both the organization
providing the servers and the community. No one from the community
noticed anything wrong with the s390x debian buildbot for months. And
no one said: "Hey, it looks like something is wrong with this
buildbot, can the s390x community take a look?"  The message was: "The
warning messages from the buildbot are annoying, so we're disabling
them."

ARM is running their own CI. If they are the ones noticing the
problems and reporting the problems from the buildbot, they don't need
a public buildbot infrastructure to accomplish that.

It's not a good message to ask companies to contribute more resources
while rationalizing why the current resources are ignored or
under-utilized.  The GDB community apparently is overwhelmed by the
current resources, so additional resources would not help.

Thanks, David

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-15 22:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-15 13:45 Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 13:54 ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-15 14:20   ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 14:34     ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-15 14:48       ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-15 15:06         ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-15 15:43           ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-15 15:53             ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-15 16:20               ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-15 17:29                 ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-15 18:55                   ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-15 19:20                     ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-15 23:20                       ` David Edelsohn
2017-12-18 19:21                         ` Andreas Arnez
2017-12-15 14:49       ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 21:19       ` Yao Qi
2017-12-15 22:40         ` David Edelsohn [this message]
2017-12-15 23:19           ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-19 10:12             ` Joel Brobecker
2017-12-19 11:15           ` Yao Qi
2018-01-15 22:29 ` [BuildBot] Notifications re-enabled for the Debian-s390x-* builders (was: Re: [BuildBot] Notifications disabled for Debian-s390x-* and Fedora-ppc64*-* builders) Sergio Durigan Junior

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAGWvnymz0m3SFxFGiFntt25oThJv5gTHtzqKWYHnA=zioP8V+A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
    --cc=emachado@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergiodj@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).