[Development] COIN failures on dev

[Adam Treat]

This was apparently the result of a miscommunication and no force 
pushing is contemplated.

On 12/12/2017 01:24 PM, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Force pushing of what? Of course in a situation where nothing else is 
> possible, we need to have a way to unblock CI by forced push. But we 
> are not pushing other than really mandatory fixes in bypassing the CI.
>
> It is very unfortunate that dev has been broken for a while, but work 
> is ongoing to unblock it.
>
> Yours,
>
>                                 Tuukka
>
> *From: *Development 
> <development-bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of 
> Adam Treat <adam.treat at qt.io>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 13.10
> *To: *Simon Hausmann <Simon.Hausmann at qt.io>, 
> "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Development] COIN failures on dev
>
> Ah, so last successful integration on qt5 super module was nearly a 
> month ago?? 11/172017
>
> Now, what I was really after was last generally unsuccessful 
> integration to see how all the brokenness went through.  I guess the 
> git repo is not the source of truth for that. The integrations 
> yesterday were failing seemingly unrelated to the patch. Folks seemed 
> generally unsurprised this was happening and attributed it to 
> flakiness that is generally known and that force pushes are the way to 
> deal with that.
>
> Is this customary? Force pushing because the CI results are too flaky 
> to be trusted?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Simon Hausmann
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:09:03 AM
> *To:* Adam Treat; development at qt-project.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Development] COIN failures on dev
>
> Hi,
>
> I find the easiest way to find the last successful integration for 
> example for qt5.git dev is this:
>
>     (1) Go to http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qt5.git/ and pick the dev branch
>
>     (2) Click on the last commit in the branch
>
>     (3) Click on the "Change-Id" link or paste the commit sha1 into 
> the Gerrit search field
>
>     (4) At the bottom of the change in Gerrit you can find a link to 
> https://testresults.qt.io/ with more details about the actual 
> integration and what other changes it was tested together with 
> (https://testresults.qt.io/coin/integration/qt/qt5/tasks/1510549095 in 
> this case).
>
> The git repo is our source of truth, and from there it's easy to get 
> back to gerrit and then the CI. All of the above steps can also be 
> done entirely in a CLI way by using Gerrit's ssh query interface.
>
> Simon
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Development 
> <development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of 
> Adam Treat <adam.treat at qt.io>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 11, 2017 5:47:41 PM
> *To:* development at qt-project.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Development] COIN failures on dev
>
> Whenever I discover something seemingly broken in an area of code I'm
> unfamiliar with I first suspect I don't understand something...
>
> Right now I'm looking for the last successful dev branch integration on
> qt5 supermodule and I can not find it. I've gone back to before
> Thanksgiving.
>
> Can this possibly be correct??
>
> Where is the dashboard showing the last successful integration for a
> given branch?
>
> On 12/11/2017 11:24 AM, Adam Treat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For the past few business days we've all witnessed failures on dev
> > branch like this: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/213309/
> >
> > Seems that something broke with provisioning on macOS or something. I
> > see this https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/214045/ attempt to fix,
> > but that is also failing to integrate due to seemingly unrelated 
> reasons.
> >
> > I'm disturbed that I haven't seen any widely shared communication
> > about this, how it broke, what is being done to fix, or what can be
> > done to stop it in the future.
> >
> > Things seem really broken with our CI system in general. I wonder that
> > this isn't the normalization of deviance. Has the project just given
> > up and regards this as standard operating procedure?
> >
> > - Adam
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20171212/3a71ca61/attachment.html>