[Gluster-devel] NetBSD tests not running to completion.

[Emmanuel Dreyfus]

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 at netbsd.org