Make the builder failure tolerance threshold configurable through a feature

[Julian Edwards]

This is the only way we can poke new values on the fly without cowboying code/config. Until the current timeout problems are resolved we want to configure this threshold on the fly. A value of zero should disable automatic builder failing completely.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

0-or-missing for simplicity I think.That way you don't need any hard
coded default.

-Rob

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Thursday 25 November 2010 17:54:03 you wrote:
> 0-or-missing for simplicity I think.That way you don't need any hard
> coded default.
>
> -Rob

Well, I'd rather default to the hard-coded figure so that it DTRT with no
feature configuration needed. I thought the point of the feature config was
to tweak the defaults.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Julian Edwards
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Well, I'd rather default to the hard-coded figure so that it DTRT with no
> feature configuration needed.  I thought the point of the feature config was
> to tweak the defaults.

Its to let us do things dynamically and in a relaxed fashion without
needing lockstep code + config changes.

The main reason I was saying no default was so the code could be a
little simpler, but its going to be pretty much a wash.

I doubt our getting the right value out of the gates though :)

Anyhow, all variations are fine.

-rob

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Thursday 25 November 2010 21:40:27 you wrote:
> I doubt our getting the right value out of the gates though :)

I'm quite confident of the default actually - once this other problem is
sorted (which I'll land a work around for tomorrow) we'll see a heck of lot
more stability anyway and given my observations of the logs files over the
last 2 or 3 years when a builder goes bong, it goes bong big stylee.

[Launchpad QA Bot (lpqabot)]

Fixed in stable r11986 <http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/stable/revision/11986>.

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

Hello? QA bot?

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

Low priority now, the latest fixes to avoid timeouts are working well.

[Ursula Junque (ursinha)]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Julian Edwards
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Hello?  QA bot?

Hi Julian, the bot should or shouldn't have touched this bug? Revno
11986 has this bug number on its branch nick:
timeouts-feature-bug-681426. Is that wrong somehow?

>
> ** Changed in: soyuz
>       Status: Fix Committed => Triaged
>
> --
> Make the builder failure tolerance threshold configurable through a feature
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/681426
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to
> Launchpad Suite.
>

--
Ursinha (Ursula Junque)
<email address hidden>
<email address hidden>
--
Ubuntu - I am because we are
--
Linux user #289453 - Ubuntu user #31144

[Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)]

On Monday 06 December 2010 19:12:56 you wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Julian Edwards
>
> <email address hidden> wrote:
> > Hello? QA bot?
>
> Hi Julian, the bot should or shouldn't have touched this bug? Revno
> 11986 has this bug number on its branch nick:
> timeouts-feature-bug-681426. Is that wrong somehow?

Yeah I was confused because I hadn't linked the branch - then I realised that
I'd stupidly put the wrong bug number on the branch nick!

I think that it might be better to let people explicitly link branches but
that's just me. Worth asking around?

Thanks!