On Fri, 11 May 2012 12:11:36 +1200, Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hudson@canonical.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012 00:30:26 +0200, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Ricardo Salveti
Sure, I just think there are better places for it :-) Based on issues we had with LAVA and Jenkins at the previous cycle, if I had one email for every issue, I'd send at least 20 of them, which is useful but that still doesn't make me send them to the list.]
Actually, I think LAVA outage was announced. I poked for getting more status updates, so more mails would have been great.
Same goes for ci.linaro.org ... if our CI service used for everything but android is not available, I want to get a mail that this is the case.
So, what this discussion points to is: we need a process for handling disruptions to the services we provide. When the **** hits the fan, the last think you want people to be doing is _thinking_, or at least, thinking about things that could have been thought through ahead of time and are not totally specific to the incident at hand.
Just recently within the LAVA team, we've started following such a process:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Internal/LAVA/Incidents(apologies to the non-Linaro insiders for the internal link). The process will look very familiar to anyone who works at Canonical...
Creating a wiki page for each incident can feel a bit heavyweight,
It turns out that moin has a funky NewPage macro (https://wiki.linaro.org/HelpOnMacros#Others) that one can use to make this really easy. So we've scrapped the Google document.
Cheers, mwh