Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions
- FAIL"):
> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:24 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > But it might not be true that it was blocked.
>
> Can't sg-run-job tell if it was blocked vs something else though?
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 14:03 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:24 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112:
> > regressions - FAIL"):
> > > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:02 +, Ian Jackson
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:44 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Eg, consider these flights:
>
> 100 is now master A pass, B pass pushed
> 200 stagingA pass, B fail `B REGR. vs 100'
> 201 stagingA fail, B not run `B fail in 200 REGR. vs 100'
>
> In flight 201, the fai
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:24 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112:
> regressions - FAIL"):
> > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:02 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > As explained below, in 65112 this step did no
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions
- FAIL"):
> On 27.11.15 at 13:02, wrote:
> > The fact that we have both `guest-localmigrate' and
> > `guest-localmigrate/x10' isn't ideal because it hides from the
> > hei
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions
- FAIL"):
> On 27.11.15 at 13:28, wrote:
> >> --- a/README.email
> >> +++ b/README.email
> >> @@ -71,6 +71,24 @@ history. Here are some examples:
> >>detec
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions
- FAIL"):
> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:02 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > As explained below, in 65112 this step did not run because the earlier
> > step `guest-localmigrate'
>>> On 27.11.15 at 13:02, wrote:
>> > > build-i386 5 xen-build fail in 65062 REGR. vs. 63449
>
> This is completely explained below, I think.
I can't see the connection to any other (failed) test here (also not
in flight 65136's results, which have just come in). There were many
blocked tests i
>>> On 27.11.15 at 13:28, wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:02 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> As explained below, in 65112 this step did not run because the earlier
>> step `guest-localmigrate' failed:
>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65112/test-amd64-
>> amd64-xl-qemut-stubdom
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 12:02 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112:
> regressions - FAIL"):
> > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 01:18 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > Neither of these failed in this flight, and ther
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.6-testing test] 65112: regressions
- FAIL"):
> On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 01:18 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Neither of these failed in this flight, and there's nothing else blocking
> > the push. Why did this not result in
On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 01:18 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 26.11.15 at 18:27, wrote:
> > flight 65112 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65112/
> >
> > Regressions :-(
> >
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which
>>> On 26.11.15 at 18:27, wrote:
> flight 65112 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65112/
>
> Regressions :-(
>
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, including tests which could not
> be run:
> build-i3865 xen-build
flight 65112 xen-4.6-testing real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65112/
Regressions :-(
Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
build-i3865 xen-buildfail in 65062 REGR. vs. 63449
test-amd64-amd64-
14 matches
Mail list logo
