From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB45A04BB for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:30:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C7E2C16; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:30:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEB42BC7 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:30:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50706E6D; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 09:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 09:30:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= rH49N9YKmdwzgGMIEubD/Ojx/S22kMl+qB4Ypw3Sg5Y=; b=fvnX4LNXkMlIh40v CMkYndALB5TZZLR965Fzw4WqzDA4YqTux9dh4hL/tEm4SM/mSaB81tuKYku7xpKh umqPiMe7hhiObEzpbFVPUkswBjjApbVqSYjxmfDTN5mQBrxzmPaiUACXwR2wKZDk xM3h80rnJJYlSjuLDNt+vbbPk+91PfaGErfHHIUYlmZTwXscnnHADve4fsq9J/5q EZpSeF65l94Lmoi0ONFeiZ/Q3TglQyr/OjsBYBtP2GsjQ1B4Cx+zj7YAsi7x8p76 XVwPLO4CjRTXKCDDkEbqsaP+6d5NayEBd6fVKWuqNr0aM2YK/UX9jo92BSy7mxDa GvB1YA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=rH49N9YKmdwzgGMIEubD/Ojx/S22kMl+qB4Ypw3Sg 5Y=; b=SJ+PeAdqRrWF2O6NsKGJLQXFF/13WvzO15ft4pb7V7j5q6vYZ65szUJUP CBEVELlZUOd4chTn65JpFpArsoHWz+xPgUjy42AwY1/OQw9xqqR25pJASwpFi7dk DA9yFR1fwh/bRy3kk+JLCT9X7fgUyhT4ZjLlbTVzJRPxVlhvgWv2vaPHostr7U+Q GTzZAkptNGQqttaEaaU9BtnVGFnLIqcfFGCwAdov7+iPLgQdNFBVe4IQCltqifu3 55vE0iIbrlWI4uNfFPIAMuvU77LC7zYSeu6FSZvFoRp8iaizIMcHHL3Rd1uwNi6i 1dgeOZYFbLxP8309AjdJFP0v31Niw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgeeggdeigecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 09E943280060; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 09:30:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lincoln Lavoie Cc: David Marchand , Brandon Lo , dpdklab , ci@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , Trishan de Lanerolle , James Hendergart Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 15:30:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1840339.piZTY7yQz5@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <4539298.X23b7sF8FS@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdklab] Re: Fedora Rawhide Meson Compile Testing - DPDK Compile Warning X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 06/10/2020 15:22, Lincoln Lavoie: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:03 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 06/10/2020 14:52, Lincoln Lavoie: > > > For Rawhide, our plan is to mark the failures as warnings instead, until > > > things catch up on the other branches. Similarly, if we add something > > like > > > GCC 11 compile, I would suggest those failures are also a warning for > > now. > > > > Sorry, I disagree with this plan. > > As a non-regression tool, we are looking for green lights. > > If a new test is not passing, it should not be added > > until the original issue is fixed. > > > > Please don't add tests if they are failing, giving warning or error. > > For Rawhide, the failure is fixed, but I don't think it's ported to all > branches yet, so how would you want to handle that. Those branches will > catch up and the failure would "disappear." Yes it will disappear, nothing to do on the lab side. > For GCC 11, that's bleeding edge, so it's more about future proofing and > how that plan is put together. I propose you prepare the test, run once and send the report to dev and ci mailing lists. Then when we (maintainers) consider it should be fixed, we will ask you to test again. If the issue is fixed, you can add the test in the CI. Would it work?