From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 10 19:24:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D005F1C for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:24:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com (mail-oa0-f54.google.com [209.85.219.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51CD58FC08 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:24:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n9so6379152oag.13 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:24:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gF/ybktDyPpMD/lh7J8L2pS33S3MACY/LutTown2daM=; b=qjoxTmncbzuC6GVuacAQdRU05Xv4GGM6CQpEaw1a9jwmAgVI+v5ZQlJvaLJwv9TjXu oo/Wx+J2uhqaN8RhW3/tMqt6ABVnk0y6bzGZUT2y7Vlb6V8k10Tr3FH1VdV7HOAmekF2 18gXVx6+bRXbxIf0dKDPr1Jp2ZJyONhOX1zZlEOcnFdEPLZuUx25oCMdzCSARv4jBP9f /RO2ky5kPfRVgMi02bQLBtz77UY4L0L81k7Oz8/DtEhoVtVJTzNXH9WxZPKaeVvisMc2 jDUYj9aBgformGLFm/kBymo2ckdyCLMEMho6gTmHLi7tvMt+yMHDqBG3KG9J1WHMQrNF O+1w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.95.234 with SMTP id dn10mr11511942obb.97.1352575492279; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.143.33 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:24:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121110235403.e0777d14f0fe274f99bafd30@gmx.com> References: <20121110091632.f1dce0d1e3f1110e781d4780@gmx.com> <20121110123424.GA506@server.rulingia.com> <20121110235403.e0777d14f0fe274f99bafd30@gmx.com> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:24:52 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm From: Garrett Cooper To: Brett Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:24:53 -0000 On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Brett wrote: > On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:34:24 +1100 > Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > On 2012-Nov-10 09:16:32 +1100, Brett wrote: > > >Just an observation: a few years ago when I got sick of Linux's > > >"headlong rush" development model, I subscribed to various BSD > > >mailing lists to see what else was out there. I considered FreeBSD at > > >the time - there was a neverending avalanche of "[head tinderbox] > > >failure" messages. > > > > The Project tries to avoid it but occasional build failures on the > > development branch are very likely to occur. As a new user, you > > would be much better off starting with a release branch. > > > > I used 9.0 and release candidates for a couple of months beforehand so i > would know what "usually" works and doesn't work before, trying current > out. Compared to many of the old timers out there I guess this makes me > very new still, though! > > > >This told me that I would be more likely to be running code written > > >by people who knew what they were doing if I went with Open, Net, or > > >DragonflyBSD. > > > > I think that's being unfair. Do Open, Net or DFly have an equivalent > > to the tinderboxes that do automated test builds and report failures? > > And, since you have replied to an ARM failure, DragonflyBSD would not > > be an option since it doesn't support ARM. > > > > The point I was trying to make (context lost in the partial quote above) > was not that it is better or worse than the other BSDs, but that at the > time (maybe 3 years ago) when I was looking around to alternatives to Linux > and reading the various mailing lists, this was the impression I got. I am > sure other people must see these daily failures and get the same > impression. Whether this is fair or not has nothing to do with what > impressions people form, and what OS they subsequently decide to install. > > As I recall reading, the tinderbox was established due to the high > incidence of build failures. In my original post on this thread, I was > commenting not on the failure of ARM build in particular, but chiming in > after Doug Brewer's request for the code to be tested before being > committed. If anyone else had backed him up I would not have felt the need > to write. > We heard your concerns loud and clear; there are several developers that understand your concerns well and we're shooting for build stability now (it's easy to achieve) and runtime stability as well (considerably harder because the automated infrastructure isn't in place yet to run smoke tests to verify that all commits are sane -- but hopefully that's coming sometime in the near future ;)...). So, as I said before, 1) let's come up with a proper solution that we can pilot (even if it's a prototype) to extend tinderbox to allow developers to toss code over the fence (branches/patches?) in order to get build results before it hits the tree (Chuck offered the hardware.. someone needs to offer the time to come up with a submit/receive mechanism) and 2) come up with a proper test environment so we can avoid regressions like this as well as the slew of clang related TB failures that are still being fixed. Thanks! -Garrett PS Adrian is doing good work out-of-band (not work related), so let's work with him in order to make his life easier -- not harder by stating the obvious and bikeshedding him to death.