Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:44 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> xen.org writes ("[xen-unstable test] 15401: regressions - FAIL"):
> > flight 15401 xen-unstable real [real]
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/15401/
> > 
> > Regressions :-(
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 15179
> 
> With some handholding, I managed to get the bisector to work on this.
> It found that the original "good" version is unreliable: it built Xen
> 5af4f2ab06f3 and in two recent tests on the same host, of the same
> build, it failed once and passed once.

Hrm, did it make any progress over the w/e.

> Under the circumstances it's not clear that the current staging is any
> worse than non-staging.  I think we should push the revision reported
> in this test (which was otherwise OK according to the tester) to
> non-staging, with a manual "hg push".

This sounds like a good idea.

> > version targeted for testing:
> >  xen                  d1bf3b21f783
> 
> I'm not sure how to do this with hg and have to go catch a train so I
> don't have time to look it up, but presumably there's some rune of the
> form "hg push -r d1bf3b21f783 ssh://xenbits/xen-unstable.hg"

That looks right to me...

Shall I? (not sure I'm in the necessary group on xenbits, but I could
try ;-))

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel