> -----Original Message----- > From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 7:25 PM > To: builds@apache.org > Subject: Re: Builds that have been failing for a while > > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Niklas Gustavsson > <nik...@protocol7.com> wrote: > > These three builds are set to be checking for updates on a periodic > > basis (polling the SCM every hour) and when upstream dependencies are > > built. > > That shouldn't be too much of a burden, or is it? It doesn't tie up > executors like some of the other failing builds. > > I'm all for disabling builds that continuously keep failing, but in > these cases only the last build has failed, and I totally expect the > builds to go blue again as soon as someone gets around to touching the > codebases. > > Instead of the time limit, would it make more sense to only disable > those jobs where >n of the last builds have failed?
Depends on the trigger frequency, last n builds could be used up in one day by some projects and take months to reach for others. I would suggest either a combination of both methods - perhaps time of 30 days .and. the last 5 builds failed, or something like that? this is a new thing that needs doing, we can't have everyone replying saying 'oh yeah please don't disable my build due to blah ...' . Lets find a sensible setting and stick to it. The aim is to get people to fix their builds or they will be disabled until they are fixed, simple. Gav... > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting
