On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 05:11:22AM -0500, Jeff Darcy wrote: > [08:45:57] ./tests/basic/afr/arbiter-statfs.t .. > [08:43:03] ./tests/basic/afr/arbiter-statfs.t .. > [08:40:06] ./tests/basic/afr/arbiter-statfs.t .. > [08:08:51] ./tests/basic/afr/arbiter-statfs.t .. > [08:06:44] ./tests/basic/afr/arbiter-statfs.t .. > [08:00:54] ./tests/basic/afr/self-heal.t .. > [07:59:56] ./tests/basic/afr/entry-self-heal.t .. > [18:05:23] ./tests/basic/quota-anon-fd-nfs.t .. > [18:06:37] ./tests/basic/quota-nfs.t .. > [18:49:32] ./tests/basic/quota-anon-fd-nfs.t .. > [18:51:46] ./tests/basic/quota-nfs.t .. > [14:25:37] ./tests/basic/quota-anon-fd-nfs.t .. > [14:26:44] ./tests/basic/quota-nfs.t .. > [14:45:13] ./tests/basic/tier/record-metadata-heat.t .. That is 6 tests, they could be disabled or ignored. > So some of us *have* done that work, in a repeatable way. Note that the > list doesn't include tests which *hang* instead of failing cleanly, > which has recently been causing the entire NetBSD queue to get stuck > until someone manually stops those jobs. What I find disturbing is the > idea that a feature with no consistently-available owner or identifiable > users can be allowed to slow or block every release unless every > developer devotes extra time to its maintenance. Even if NetBSD itself > is worth it, I think that's an unhealthy precedent to set for the > project as a whole. For that point, we could start the regression script by: ( sleep 7200 && /sbin/reboot -n ) & And end it with: kill %1 Does it seems reasonable? That way nothing can hang more than 2 hours. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus manu@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
