[Buildbot-devel] Expected behavior of bots when SIGHUP received?

[Dan Kegel]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree that SIGHUP should trigger a reconfig, but I'm not sure that
> SIGTERM for *gracefully* shutting down a slave is the right way, either.
> Maybe SIGINT? The reason is that SIGTERM usually means "this is your last
> warning before the system hands out a bunch of SIGKILLs", and the delay
> between the two signals is probably shorter than most builds would take to
> complete.

SIGINT is for the keyboard, I think.  SIGTERM really is the polite
way to ask a process to shut down.  I looked around for how
long OS's wait after SIGTERM before sending SIGKILL,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGTERM says "a few seconds";
on arch linux, it's five seconds:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=119246

> Dan: regarding your master restart situation, I'm wondering if the slave
> connection retry code isn't doing the right thing for you. I have one
> BuildBot setup which has an absurdly complex master config, and if I do a
> "buildbot restart" (versus a manual stop then start), the slaves have all
> connected by the time I switch to the web browser to view the slave status
> page. Or do you need to gracefully stop the master before restarting with
> the new configuration?

I'm doing an utterly clean restart of the server from ground
zero.  Probably overkill, but since my master and slaves are
all totally created by scripts, it's the best way to debug the scripts.
- Dan