[Development] qtbase CI now takes 6 hours

Stephen Kelly stephen.kelly at kdab.com
Fri May 17 09:33:48 CEST 2013


On Friday, May 17, 2013 06:14:12 you wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I'm responsible for keeping the CI up and running and having it stable. So
> in cases like this, you may point a finger at me and ask what's going on.
> Currently quite a few things, and I'll try to summarize here what's going
> on.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for responding. I have some follow-ups.

1) Can you add the time taken to integrate to the report emails?

2) Can you notify this list when you know a CI blocker has been introduced? 
(like the improvements you mentioned which were held back until after beta1 
and which cause some problems, and the current network tests failing, which 
you might be aware of) That way we don't have to point a finger at you and ask 
what's going on.

3) Can you disable staging when such problems occur, so that everyone knows 
that it won't work anyway?

4) You say you're responsible for keeping CI up and running. Does that include 
keeping branches merging and keeping qt5.git up to date? If not, then as I 
wrote before I think we still need a better way of tracking that.

5) It's quite easy to see when the integration failed due to cloning, and when 
it failed due to a problematic integration machine (eg macx-clang_developer-
build_qtnamespace_OSX_10.7), or a network server issue. The problem is we 
don't really know if anything is being done to address some of those issues. 
Is anything being done about https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-30646 ? Either fixing the problems that are occuring 
on it, or disabling it in places where it still causes problems (qtbase and 
qtdeclarative)? 

6) I see that some Windows machines seems to be persistently failing in a way 
which reminds me of macx-clang_developer-build_qtnamespace_OSX_10.7. Are you 
aware of that/have it on your needs-fix radar?

7) Does your responsibility for keeping CI up and running include anything to 
do with solving problems of integration which are not related to the patches 
under test? Does it involve marking tests or platforms insignificant where 
appropriate and in a timely way? If not, then that's something we need to 
know, as I wrote before, so we can see if a 'scramble and fix it' solution can 
work.


The current situation of CI failing for reasons unrelated to the patches under 
test is very frustrating. We need to find out who is responsible for which 
parts of that and able to fix the issues.

Thanks,

-- 
Stephen Kelly <stephen.kelly at kdab.com> | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130517/42bc5801/attachment.sig>


More information about the Development mailing list