Re: testing branch 2010-11-12

[Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>]

On 11/15/2010 08:47 AM, Cliff Brake wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Yury Bushmelev<jay4mail@gmail.com>  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.
>
> If someone has the time to update the oestats-server to provide
> summary data in a tabular form, that would be great.
>
> Alternatively, using forms on a google spreadsheet is an interesting
> idea.  I had not thought of forms as a way that we could get anonymous
> build data with requiring a google account.  Then again, I'm not sure
> how we would keep the form from being spammed, other than perhaps
> hiding it.

I do have to admit that I hadn't given it more than a few seconds 
thought, but can't we perform some sanity checks on the input?  That 
should really cut down on the spam, I would think (ie make sure the 
tested tag field starts with testing_).  If this sounds like a possibly 
decent idea I can try and play with it a little bit.

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation