On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:34 AM Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> [ sigh; now I sent it unfinished ]
>
> On Jul 13, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2020, at 7:28 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [sigh; sent unfinished]
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:19 AM Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Not sure who is keeping an eye on the buildbot config, but Infra has been
>> looking at the buildmaster and found that we (svn) have about 14G of
>> nightlies laying around since 2015 (!!)
>>
>
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/subversion/nightlies/index.html
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/subversion/nightlies/dist/
>
> It seems that we likely only need (say) one week's worth of nightlies
> (each is about 50M). What is the appropriate number?
>
> Is there a buildbot config option that is missing, that is avoiding a
> purge of these files? Or does something "behind the scenes" need to take
> responsibility?
>
> I believe Infra is likely to start *enforcing* some duration and overall
> disk usage constraints. This likely won't impact us, as long as we purge
> old builds according to our desired retention. So I think the more
> important concern for our community is the question of "how many nightlies
> do we want to retain?" ... I suspect whatever answer will be fine, but
> finding an accepted consensus would be helpful.
>
> I'll lead with this stake-in-the-ground:
> ** retain one week of nightly builds
>
>
> +1 a week seems reasonable
>
> Do we only make a new nightly if the /trunk HEAD has advanced since the
> last one? If so, then are you suggesting we keep the last 7 nightlies?
>
>
> Did you happen to check if we even have a current nightly? ISTR several
> months ago C-Mike had a question about building the tarball so he could try
> out the Python 3 bindings where someone pointed out we post nightlies and
> he could use that ... but then it turned out that the process had not been
> working for a few years.
>
> Maybe I mis-remember or maybe it was fixed. But it could be that none of
> them have any value (they are all old) and we are not even making these
> anymore.
>
So I was just looking at the *build date* ... but Mark is right: it's
totally broken. It has been building the same thing for a loooooong time.
Can anybody volunteer to pick this up, and correct it? Get it building HEAD
rather than $oldcrap ?
Then we still have the "how many to retain?" question. I do like Mark's
idea of maybe defining it as "7 builds" rather than "7 nights".
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2020-07-13 15:00:59 CEST