Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:57:01 -0700
From:      Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64
Message-ID:  <4C89663D.5050007@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <201009081439.o88EdHwh064108@lava.sentex.ca>
References:  <201009081055.o88Atvu8050938@freebsd-current.sentex.ca>	<AANLkTim4UzWv=jgZcfEO9M=y-Mnp2pxa5jh4foiFZRQO@mail.gmail.com>	<20100908130700.GA53378@mail.hs.ntnu.edu.tw> <201009081439.o88EdHwh064108@lava.sentex.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/8/2010 7:39 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 09:07 AM 9/8/2010, Denny Lin wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 04:55:14AM -0700, Rob Farmer wrote:
>> > > TB --- 2010-09-08 10:16:32 - /usr/bin/csup -z -r 3 -g -L 1 -h
>> cvsup18.freebsd.org /tinderbox/HEAD/amd64/amd64/supfile
>> > > TB --- 2010-09-08 10:55:57 - WARNING: /usr/bin/csup returned exit
>> code  1
>> > > TB --- 2010-09-08 10:55:57 - ERROR: unable to cvsup the source tree
>> > > TB --- 2010-09-08 10:55:57 - 1.81 user 60.35 system 2456.66 real
>> >
>> > Is it possible to either have the tinderbox try multiple cvsup servers
>> > or just not send a message if cvsup fails? Counting all branches and
>> > all archs, there have been around 50 "ERROR: unable to cvsup the
>> > source tree" mails in the last week.
>>
>> I don't think Tinderbox supports multiple CVSup servers at the moment.
>> It seems like a desirable feature.
>
> Normally they are pointed to a local mirror here at Sentex. However,
> that server was having hardware problems which I think we have isolated
> and resolved now. I will repoint this tinderbox to the local site again.

The best way to handle this would be to have messages about csup failing 
to be directed only to those who are actually able to fix the problem. 
Assuming that the cvsup server is always going to work is contrary to 
both history and good system administration practices. :)

> Perhaps as an interim measure a local procmail rule to filter out cvsup
> failures from going to the list ?

That's a particularly unhelpful response. Not only is it borderline rude 
to attempt to shift the responsibility for this to the users, it's a 
violation of the robustness principle.

Perhaps more importantly though, the amount of tinderbox spam we already 
receive as a result of developers inadequately testing their work is bad 
enough, but the extra spam about csup failures is causing the whole 
tinderbox feature to be increasingly useless since more and more people 
are simply filtering the messages. Such filters, once added, are rather 
unlikely to be removed.


Doug

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C89663D.5050007>