From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: Proposed force push of staging to master Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: <5302160B.70601@eu.citrix.com> References: <21249.64449.582039.323772@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21249.64449.582039.323772@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/17/2014 12:08 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > xen.org writes ("[xen-unstable test] 24870: regressions - trouble: broken/fail/pass"): >> flight 24870 xen-unstable real [real] >> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/24870/ >> >> Regressions :-( >> >> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, >> including tests which could not be run: >> build-i386-oldkern 3 host-build-prep fail REGR. vs. 24862 > This was the "usual" failure: Citrix's intercepting web proxy causes > some hg clones of linux-2.6.18.hg from xenbits to fail. The rest of > the flight was successful. > > The rest of the weekend's tests were badly affected by a disk failure > on earwig. So as a result we didn't get a push. > > I cleared out a bunch of other stuff running in the test system in an > effort to get a pass sooner, but peeking at the results the same job > has failed the same way in the currently-running flight. So we won't > get a push in that iteration either. > > We should consider doing a force push for RC4. The risks are: > * There is something actually wrong with xen.git which causes the > 32-bit 2.6.18 build to fail; > * Less resistance in the future to 2.6.18 build failures. > I'll discuss these in turn. > > The build-*-oldkern tests involve using the kernel-building machinery > in xen.git to clone 2.6.18 from xenbits and build it. Firstly, I think > it's unlikely that anything in xen.git#d883c179..4e8d89bc would affect > that. Secondly, the build-amd64-oldkern builds have passed. So I > think we can almost entirely discount the first risk. > > I think the second risk is tolerable. We should keep an eye on it for > a bit and if it turns out that the oldkern build really does become > broken later and as a result keeps failing indefinitely, we will be > able to spot that. > > So, we propose to push 4e8d89bc1445f91c4c6c7bf0ad8d51b0c809841e to > xen.git#master and call it RC4. Comments welcome. Thanks for the analysis. This seems like a good plan. -George