Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

Be warned, I'll run the script to disable build which been failing for more than 31 days on Sunday. This is the current list of such jobs: ActiveMQ-SysTest-5.3 | 6 mo 25 days AsyncWeb | 3 mo 2 days Cayenne-doc

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

Hi, On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > Be warned, I'll run the script to disable build which been failing for > more than 31 days on Sunday. This is the current list of such jobs: > [...] > Jackrabbit-1.6                                     | 1 mo 12 days > Jackrabbit-cl

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Niklas Gustavsson > wrote: >> Jackrabbit-1.6                                     | 1 mo 12 days >> Jackrabbit-classloader                             | 3 mo 10 days >> Jackrabbit-ocm                        

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

Hi, On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Niklas Gustavsson 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

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > 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. It does tie up an SCMTrigger which is a resource that keeps failing and does require administration (they will get stuck

RE: Builds that have been failing for a while

> -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 > wrote: > > These thre

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Gav... wrote: > I would suggest either a combination of both methods - perhaps time of 30 > days .and. > the last 5 builds failed, or something like that? That was my plan as well. Here's the list of jobs that has failed for more than one month and with more than

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

Hi, On 24.09.2010 14:20, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Gav... wrote: >> I would suggest either a combination of both methods - perhaps time of 30 >> days .and. >> the last 5 builds failed, or something like that? > > That was my plan as well. Here's the list of job

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

2010/9/24 Tammo van Lessen > > Perhaps it might make sense to also notify the respective PMCs and > advertise this mailinglist as I could imagine that some PMCs are not > even aware of it. > > Tammo > > -- > Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de > +1 Regarding clerezza-site job I am taking a lo

Re: Builds that have been failing for a while

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Tammo van Lessen wrote: > Perhaps it might make sense to also notify the respective PMCs and > advertise this mailinglist as I could imagine that some PMCs are not > even aware of it. We do ask those which gets access to Hudson to follow this list for this exact p

SSH problem again

Hi, The SSH problem is there again. Building remotely on ubuntu1 hudson.util.IOException2: remote file operation failed: /home/hudson/hudson-slave/workspace/dir-skins-jdk15-ubuntu-deploy-site at hudson.remoting.chan...@75167bb3:ubuntu1 at hudson.FilePath.act(FilePath.java:749) at