[Dev] Rotating build sheriff duties?

[Andi Vajda]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> At 11:50 AM 12/7/2005 -0800, Andi Vajda wrote:
>> If the tinderboxes are smart enough to know who the last committers were 
>> and are smart enough to know that the build or tests are failing they are 
>> obviously smart enough to send mail or otherwise ping on irc the allegedly 
>> guilty parties. If they do it in mail, the tinderboxes should also send the 
>> complete stack trace of the failure, something that can be a pain to 
>> extract via the browser interface.
>
> Focusing on implementation issues here, the current way that hardhat runs 
> tests would probably make it difficult for an automated process to extract 
> just the failure.  I think we could ultimately fix that too, but it's a more 
> invasive change than just sending an email with some highlights from the log 
> and a link or two.  We could create a completely external tool to do failure 
> notifications that way, whereas smart error extraction would probably require 
> some changes to hardhat.
>
> Not that I think it shouldn't be done in the long-term, it's just that it's 
> not the lowest-hanging fruit here.  Just having *some* kind of failure 
> notification pushed to the committers would be a big step forward here over 
> the current need to poll the status page.  (And not just because it would 
> eliminate rotating sheriff duty, but because it'd be more convenient for 
> developers, too.)

+1

Andi..