mozilla :: #rust-infra

27 Apr 2017
00:02frewsxcvi'm looking forward to people getting r+ privileges whenever this team becomes a thing
00:07aidanhsI find something very satisfying about two fixes for spurious failures being merged into master sequentially
00:08aidanhs(aside from the obvious of there being fewer spurious failures...assuming they both work!)
00:13aidanhsfelicitous seems like a fitting word, I like it
00:24aturonsimulacrum: i don't think it needs to involve the whole core team, but i'm also not personally sure what all the implications are
00:24aturonin general we should feel empowered to make changes to infra (with buy-in from stakeholders, all of which are part of the team)
00:25simulacrumaturon: It's not too urgent, but the free heroku version of perf.rlo will not be running the whole month next month
00:26aturonsimulacrum: do you think you could make a (very brief) writeup of the current state, what you'd like to move to, and what the implications are?
00:26simulacrumNo problem
00:26simulacrumAny particular place? Google doc?
00:26aturonsimulacrum: google doc sounds good for now, yeah
00:26aturonwe'll have to figure out what process we ultimately want for review, but let's keep it super lightweight for now
00:28aturonacrichto: would you mind documenting, somewhere, the various permissions for things like r+, committing to the repo/labeling, where the highfive assignments are -- all the stuff along those lines? either in the FAQ or directly in the forge?
00:28aturonacrichto: i bring this up in part because i want to clear up what frewsxcv re: permissions appropriate for everyone involved in infra work
00:28aturon(i believe you were handing out some perms before, but am not sure exactly what you did)
00:29frewsxcvi know you probably still want documentation for it, but here's where reviewers are specified
00:31aturonfrewsxcv: thanks
00:31aturonand yeah, want to gather this stuff in a persistent place
00:38aturonaidanhs: just saw your PR, awesome work!
00:51acrichtoaidanhs: lol my favorite is when a "fix" for a spurious failure bounces because it fails spuriously
00:51acrichto"well I guess that answers that question"
00:52simulacrumacrichto: Do you know if the ALLOW_PR=1 current builder produces sufficient artifacts to allow running performance tests against? I expect those aren't uploaded anywhere, but it'd be interesting to know if we already produce them..
00:52acrichtoaturon: sure I will try to document that in the FAQ
00:53acrichtosimulacrum: I don't believe so, no
00:53acrichtobuilders on PRs don't upload anything
00:53simulacrumSure, but do they build enough?
00:53simulacrumI assume yes
00:53acrichtoI think so yeah
00:54acrichtob/c they don't build less than the main ones
00:54acrichtothey just skip the deploy step
00:54simulacrumI was thinking time wise more so than deploy wise
01:09simulacrumaturon: Dropped the document into the folder, but:
01:09simulacrumI don't really know
01:09simulacrumIs that what you were looking for?
01:28aturonsimulacrum: perfect; only thing missing is the $ price
01:33simulacrumaturon: Hmm, I'll look into that
01:37simulacrumaturon: Added pricing. It's somewhat vague, but $0-25/month, likely $7/month I think
01:39aturonsimulacrum: ok, so a non-issue :) thanks again! last step, send out an email to with a link, asking for feedback in the form of comments on the google doc?
01:39aturonsimulacrum: then by the meeting we should be in a position to make a decision
01:40simulacrumSounds good
01:45est31what happened to perf.rlo?
01:45est31first link in this link
01:45est31list in this list*
01:46simulacrumest31: So perf.rlo I believe is hosted in EC2, which is difficult for us to give out access to
01:46est31so its down due to a bug?
01:46simulacrumEffectively yes
01:47simulacrumBut deploying to it is also hard since I can't do it
01:47simulacrumI added a note to the doc
01:47est31good to know, thought it got discontinued with the move to abandon buildbot
01:48est31oh you were discussing it right now.
01:52est31simulacrum: afaik, is already hosted on heroku
01:52est31maybe they offer cheaper access to two machines instead of one?
01:54simulacrumI don't think so, but it's possible
01:54simulacrumLooks like $7/month is fine though so probably not too big a concern
01:54est31here is the link that says is on heroku
01:55simulacrumA source! :)
02:36frewsxcvanyone around?
02:36frewsxcvrollup builds don't have any logs for me
02:37frewsxcvbuild times look normal though
02:37frewsxcvjust waiting on windows
02:37frewsxcvi'm going to blame this on travis
02:39acrichtofrewsxcv: travis has some db maintenance right now I think
02:39acrichtowhich may explain that
03:09simulacrumacrichto: Can we make either redirect to buildbot2 or move buildbot2 to buildbot? I just get a hanging page on buildbot.r-l.o which is.. unfortunate.
03:09simulacrumNot sure if you're the person to talk to about this
04:14acrichtosimulacrum: we could yeah
04:14acrichtoI'd need to set up ssl certs
04:14acrichtowhich just takes effort
04:14acrichtonot as easy as a switch flip
04:19acrichtosimulacrum: if you're willing to give it a stab I could walk you through the steps
04:19acrichtoin theory it's just a PR to rust-central-station
04:20acrichtoand then I'd configure the DNS
06:00acrichtoaidanhs: I think this'll massively speed up android
08:32aidanhsa bunch of PRs have just failed on appveyor, which is ominous
08:35aidanhshmm, possible appveyor network problems
08:36aidanhs"Inner Exception: The remote name could not be resolved: ''"
08:47aidanhs"Investigating - We are receiving reports from customers getting "remote name cannot be resolved" errors in their builds."
08:56aidanhsapparently fixed, let's see...
09:08aidanhsseems ok
12:42simulacrumacrichto: Yeah, sure, I'd be happy to try making work once more. Grepping for buildbot in central station only showed me one instance, though. I'll ping you later to discuss steps, need to run soon
13:28carols10centsi think this is travis, not us, but this osx worker just didn't do anything at all... I logged it in the PR tracking spreadsheet
13:31carols10centsand i restarted the build so now it looks like everything was fine
13:31carols10centsthere was just literally nothing in the box where there's usually logs
13:46aidanhscarols10cents: sometimes that happens with osx builds and you only end up being able to see the logs a few hours after the build finished
13:47aidanhsin fact I saw it yesterday for a non-osx build
13:47carols10centsaidanhs: it was marked as failed tho
13:49aidanhsyeah, that sounds like the one I saw yesterday - powerpc linux had failed on a rollup but frewsxcv couldn't see the logs to find out why (I checked and was also unable to see the logs). I came to it a few hours later and they were there
13:51aidanhswhere 'a few' == 6, looking at the irc logs
13:53carols10centsstrange. oh well. i restarted it anyway
13:53aidanhsthough I didn't see the issue 'in action', so it could be completely different
13:53aidanhsprobably best - given it's a PR build, there's nothing for OSX to fail on anyway!
14:06acrichtosimulacrum: ok cool just lemme know
14:07acrichtoaidanhs: thanks for retrying those prs
14:07acrichtoand finding that status page!
27 Apr 2017
Last message: 53 minutes and 46 seconds ago