From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from hermes.mlbassoc.com ([64.234.241.98] helo=mail.chez-thomas.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PI1HE-0007FV-L9 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:47:32 +0100 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id 1AF1C16604E7; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:46:25 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (hermes_local [192.168.1.101]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E5F16601C7; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:46:19 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4CE155CA.6000505@mlbassoc.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:46:18 -0700 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <4CE02C8A.2040002@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.234.241.98 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gary@mlbassoc.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: testing branch 2010-11-12 X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:47:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/14/2010 12:23 PM, Yury Bushmelev wrote: > 2010/11/14 Tom Rini: >> On 11/14/2010 11:11 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >>> >>> 2010/11/12 Cliff Brake: >>>> >>>> testing-next is ready for clean builds. Not many builds succeeded >>>> last week--I suspect people have been busy: >>> >>> Actually my builds also succeeded (apart from the neek one which seem >>> to require some more love). The autobuilder did it's job quite nicely, >>> but I was just not around to verify the results and update the page. >>> The neek requires at least the os2 patch. >>> >>> Testing 2010-11-12 gives the same results. updated the testing page. >> >> After my first week of doing some testing branch test builds I was thinking, >> would some form of either automated result submitting or form-based result >> submitting be a good idea? We could try and use a google doc spreadsheet / >> form, for example. Thoughts? > > I'll prefer to use our oestats-server to auto-publish builds data. > Oestats have complete information about builds. Except when they don't :-( I've tried to use this many times and there have been times when the oestats results are stale or incorrect. Sometimes a build completes, but the status is not updated as such. Similarly, when a build fails, that may or may not show up as well. I reported this to the list a couple of weeks ago, but there was no response at all. It's not all that important to me (so I moved on), but if you're going to rely on it to be able to summarize the results from a given set of builds, it may be important that it works reliably. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------