From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21404 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 20:24:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 21397 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 20:24:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:24:19 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q4VKOAE24246; Thu, 31 May 2012 21:24:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from shurg.barn.ecoscentric.com (unknown [87.127.120.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6104C3FE1; Thu, 31 May 2012 21:24:09 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4FC7D368.5040502@jifvik.org> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 05:51:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Carlos O'Donell" Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Banned IP address for CI glibc builds? References: <4FC7AA18.8030307@mentor.com> <20120531173558.GG26201@redhat.com> <4FC7B567.2090605@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4FC7B567.2090605@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q2/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 On 31/05/12 19:16, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 5/31/2012 1:35 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:27:52PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>> One of our volunteers is bringing up a continuous integration >>> system for building and testing GLIBC. >>> >>> The IP address of the machine is: 130.161.158.181 >> >> OK, it's been unblocked. Please ensure that these folks use >> efficient git operations (pull as opposed to clone). > > Many thanks. > > The volunteer says he uses `git pull --rebase` to update the repo which > seems like the most efficient operation. I have no real knowledge of the requirements of the build system, but it strikes me that rather than polling every 5 minutes, it would be better to do something event driven, possibly based on git hooks (), or even just commit messages sent to the mailing list. Jifl -- --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine