[Mageia-dev] [soft-commits] [5642] skip packages with no name

Wed Sep 5 13:27:38 CEST 2012

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Romain d'Alverny <rdalverny at gmail.com> wrote:
+> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
+>> 'Twas brillig, and Pascal Terjan at 04/09/12 17:57 did gyre and gimble:
+>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Romain d'Alverny <rdalverny at gmail.com> wrote:
+>>>
+>>>> By the way, there are some builds that get a strangely reported build
+>>>> duration (15588 days; always the same value when it occurs). I didn't
+>>>> investigate yet.
+>>
+>> So 15588 would be days since epoch. I guess it's the same as Pascal's
+>> comment. If it was submitted over 2 days ago we might not read the
+>> submit time and it ends up getting a timestamp of 0 and thus 15588 days
+>> to build.
+>
+> Ok. So at this point (where we do a find to get the files), what's the
+> good approach: just leave the package/build out of the list if we
+> can't get its name (that's the new behaviour in my pending new index
+> page) or fix the find to get all? I'd say the former.
+
+Yes that's fine
+
+> Two others things that are aside this very point:
+>
+> * we could gain more insight over the whole submission/build process
+> if we could store data about way past builds (not necessarily the full
+> details of each build, at least not right now, but at least the
+> basics: when, who, what package, how long it took on which host, what
+> was the result). One way to do it would be to have a database in which
+> we can push and update info about each submission, as it happens
+> (today, everything is only in the filesystem). What control points
+> would need to be modified to push information into such a database?
+
+Ulri would probably be enough expect for upload, so maybe ulri + emi
+But then it would be better to instead use that as reference in
+ulri/emi instead of looking through the filesystem :)
+
+> * today, submissions are shown simply by src package. Should we show
+> submission results per arch? (what if i586 passes and x86_64 fails for
+> instance).
+
+It can not happen unless there is a bug, they are submitted together
+