Re: testing branch 2010-11-12

[Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>]

On 11/14/2010 12:23 PM, Yury Bushmelev wrote:
> 2010/11/14 Tom Rini<tom_rini@mentor.com>:
>> On 11/14/2010 11:11 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>>
>>> 2010/11/12 Cliff Brake<cliff.brake@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> 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
------------------------------------------------------------