samba_dnsupdate timeouts (was Re: [PATCH] python indent bugfix in dns_hub.py)
jra at samba.org
Tue Feb 5 08:01:12 UTC 2019
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 11:54:29PM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 08:44:08AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 09:21:58AM +0200, Isaac Boukris via samba-technical wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:28 AM Tim Beale <timbeale at catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it looks like changing the process model was enough to push the CI
> > > > runners over the edge fairly reliably.
> > >
> > > FYI, I just tried to rebase merge request !200 on master and
> > > build_samba_ad_dc_2 failed on a somewhat different dns error:
> > > https://gitlab.com/samba-team/devel/samba/-/jobs/156308654
> > I'll work on a patchset to restore the pre-async-dns/dns_hub behaviour
> > and remove the dns_hub again. We need to find a different way to
> > approach async DNS and properly test it. The current approach has
> > proven to be the wrong way.
> Please don't do that. It appears to be a python / resource limit
> issue on the gitlab-CI runners. Removing dns_hub isn't going
> to make *any* difference here, we're going to run into this
> again and again until we find a way to break up the tests or
> get more resources on gitlab.
> Revert frenzy is never a good move. Don't do it please, it's
> a waste of time.
Requesting a change be reverted or withdrawn
If possible, we prefer not to revert changes that have already gone
into master, and to avoid withdrawing patches already proposed.
If changes need to be made to code that has gone into master,
we would prefer a revision on top of the existing master code
so we have a record of the technical decisions made in review.
There is a *GOOD REASON* that text was added.
More information about the samba-technical