[Qa-jenkins-dev] remaining review of 180192b74..85c8b0211

[Holger Levsen]

hi Mattia & sorry for the delay,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 08:57:11AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:17:26PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > df10b0d26b: can we afford to keep the old worker logs a day longer?
> 
> yes, I only noticed an average increase in the used space on the
> relevant partition of ~10%, i.e. 

hm, i wanted to comment on the fs usage, but

holger at jenkins:~$ df -h|wc
    429    2575   6701

so, aeh, i guess we got bigger fish to fry...

and from the followup:
 
> ~20GB, but apparently that's not even coming from the worker logs.
> Curently the worker logs directory is taking 29 GB, so yes, we can
> afford them.

so, yes, indeed we can afford this, at least atm ;)


> > c276d112b: has one non-comment change...
> Are you referring to the -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true arg?  As the
> commit message says, that's coming from the upstream package; also
> looking at the relevant java doc it seemed sane to me.

no, the umask change...

> > 3db1646f9: oh, you reimplemented fcopy :) (though i do like
> > ./hosts/common/)
> 
> I haven't moved to common/ all the files that could be moved.  Before
> doing so every file need to be checked for whether some host has some
> modification, which makes doing it kind of a long process...

i've started to move some, not all yet though.

common-amd64 etc would be nice too ;) 

that said, i really like it!

> > 0fb4a33c1: i dont think that file was accidently commited...?!?!
> 
> That file has nothing to do with the commit that added it… I believe it
> was a previous iteration of bin/cgi-bin/nph-logwatch or something like
> that.

ah!

> Would you happen to remember what it was for?  I couldn't find any
> reference to it on the rest of the code nor elsewhere.

given the above (and without looking at the code again) this makes
sense now, thanks!

> > 12b21850f: AFAICS the commit message is the only documentation of this,
> > shouldnt this also be noted in TODO for future reference/cleanup?
> 
> Mhh yeah…
> I also haven't mentioned that I applied such workaround in the relevant
> bug report.
> Will try to remember to do it during the weekend.

ping ;)

> > we could have a check / simple grep for git repos not yet migrated to
> > salsa...
> What are you referring to?

$ rgrep  git.debian.org *|wc -l
28

28 git repo mentions which need to be migrated to salsa.



-- 
cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/qa-jenkins-dev/attachments/20180421/0722ce12/attachment-0001.sig>