Re: Patchy email

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden writes:
>
>> 23:08:39 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at    
>> 825dd87d0b1b58e56d7c66ef1fc1dd672d913c84
>> 23:08:41 Auto packing the repository in background for optimum performance.
>> See "git help gc" for manual housekeeping.
>> 23:08:47 Merged staging, now at:     825dd87d0b1b58e56d7c66ef1fc1dd672d913c84
>> 23:08:48     Success:                ./autogen.sh --noconfigure
>> 23:09:00     Success:                /tmp/lilypond-autobuild/configure 
>> --enable-checking
>> 23:09:02     Success:                nice make clean
>> 23:12:38     Success:                nice make -j9 CPU_COUNT=9
>> 23:17:06     Success:                nice make test -j9 CPU_COUNT=9
>> 23:31:48 *** FAILED BUILD ***
>>      nice make doc -j9 CPU_COUNT=9
>>      Previous good commit:   06b5ac8389b5cc3c9afbb2c84e2e5c02d0c9dca0
>>      Current broken commit:  825dd87d0b1b58e56d7c66ef1fc1dd672d913c84
>> 23:31:48 *** FAILED STEP ***
>>      merge from staging
>>      Failed runner: nice make doc -j9 CPU_COUNT=9
>> See the log file log-staging-nice-make-doc--j9-CPU_COUNT=9.txt
>> 23:31:48 Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/tmp/lilypond-extra/patches/compile_lilypond_test/__init__.py", 
>> line 528, in handle_staging
>>     self.build (issue_id=issue_id)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/tmp/lilypond-extra/patches/compile_lilypond_test/__init__.py", 
>> line 333, in build
>>     issue_id)
>>   File 
>> "/usr/local/tmp/lilypond-extra/patches/compile_lilypond_test/__init__.py", 
>> line 266, in runner
>>     raise FailedCommand ("Failed runner: %s\nSee the log file %s" % 
>> (command, this_logfilename))
>> FailedCommand: Failed runner: nice make doc -j9 CPU_COUNT=9
>> See the log file log-staging-nice-make-doc--j9-CPU_COUNT=9.txt
>
> That one was actually a segfault.  Cannot plausibly come from my patch,
> so that is sort-of confusing.  I'll retry.

Succeeded on the second try.  I don't really believe in a hardware bug,
so it may be a Heisenbug instead.  Hopefully not something due to
unprotected SCM data structures in some earlier commit: it's not like we
haven't seen that kind of problem before.

-- 
David Kastrup