From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f170.google.com (mail-wj0-f170.google.com [209.85.210.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D806A567A for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:47:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wj0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v7so204890039wjy.2 for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 05:47:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=94y7fh/Z72CEfxnOtN06/Lk/NrB/LcGJcQmD1mpcVBo=; b=VcTRq+r6PMBhlUMjMf5ycPIBdOLNV3RaWBdPl7x+2EnMF/3vrK7a6s75ixQSOyPfWi t4r3rClk3JKndBUOmBnrUAZxTNyUx2BZ4qo3oepkVGvDaNVIPNSHh1DiIVpZrgT0+WQG Rqpg9272JxeB69+dbQw8WpAOJYtvGE4BSsE7TdOs3rD667OsjwHJ7lOtd4Ra9uXj5Ifl 2dyc5EfhdyNOfaCCEJNS9k83McbSfQ6lOjoCnhLOFjPe6sIjOg0iNrBwkCXCZD+f2L5J j+zzADIPhhmFxrO7uC2RKNbSvHtj+CHQGrxJNTlZERisbQ/UtRxoZF33fi4dC1THdFDl FbnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=94y7fh/Z72CEfxnOtN06/Lk/NrB/LcGJcQmD1mpcVBo=; b=FXL/YerkSBGN1EwNKo6lNcFUjdHWGTBTQxKnJz4GzQWlcNRGWnMADnckpeFLG5sfFE jfbgyCwBKn4bMh4zJa1+aKevQYTkSB9D1l8zghNOET82AI80dhqgwixQDLX2/3l3YUZP Hpy2vUTH1oRUmdvenAbFZNdSKhHHL2NfF1uR5tcZWZQ3IwOpKU+WHx+llXGO4scyXXUN fR3e5n0rKz6DSEyen7D8rVc8HUB3Uc7PQjNNSnuZ3pRGpyfs/ROIGtRQX/eVmjgYuEKx j6qJKWEHZ3s4df/aOLOHEY+m7ekXVw6HepT1kh6BC8YbSqWVncUa9JdnEfiV6NstbLC3 4OKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01lW4oX8+hJHLplXh3WVOdeZTLYuIUSTdY9vL/w6UVHlnH8WiPrXhd2zFvcHaQlMl42 X-Received: by 10.194.14.196 with SMTP id r4mr7629560wjc.54.1480600036612; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 05:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vr9sm326380wjc.35.2016.12.01.05.47.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Dec 2016 05:47:16 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Wei, FangfangX" Cc: "Xu, Qian Q" , Yuanhan Liu , "Cao, Waterman" , ci@dpdk.org Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 14:47:15 +0100 Message-ID: <2184489.LqFIsnVxV4@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <067B569323FEB248B5CB480E1954F4346BE91496@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1480575999-14453-3-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1606552.mGUOoSz4ly@xps13> <067B569323FEB248B5CB480E1954F4346BE91496@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] |SUCCESS| [PATCH 2/3] maintainers: update virtio section name X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:47:17 -0000 2016-12-01 09:47, Wei, FangfangX: > Hi Thomas, > > I can receive the checkpatch email no matter the result is success or warning. > Through the attached email, we can see the receiver is test-report@dpdk.org and cc to the author, no matter what the result is. > And above two patches are send to the mailing list dev@dpdk.org. > > I think currently the checkpatch email has not been done according to the status of the message sent to different recipients. Yes it's broken since a rework I did just before submitting the scripts. It should be fixed in v2 just sent. > -----Original Message----- > From: ci [mailto:ci-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 5:06 PM > To: Xu, Qian Q ; Yuanhan Liu > Cc: Cao, Waterman ; ci@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] |SUCCESS| [PATCH 2/3] maintainers: update virtio section name > > 2016-12-01 08:44, Xu, Qian Q: > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:06:41AM +0100, checkpatch@dpdk.org wrote: > > > > Test-Label: checkpatch > > > > Test-Status: SUCCESS > > > > http://dpdk.org/patch/17348 > > > > > > > > _coding style OK_ > > > > > > Great! This kind of emails is something I'd like to see for a while. > > > But I don't like to receive SUCCESS notice. Normally, I'm positive > > > my patches are well qualified. The SUCCESS notice only makes my inbox fat-er but nothing else. > > It is a bug. > If the email has the list-id dev.dpdk.org, success should not be reported to the author. > > > > Of course, I'd like to receive failure notices if any. > > > Thomas is the owner for the check patch, I wonder if Thomas can add one button or provide options for the patch submitters to receive the mails or not. > > Generally developer may not want to receive the SUCCESS mail, but some > > may want to receive the mail to make sure the test is done and all pass. We may not simply disable all SUCCESS mails, instead we'd better provide choice for people. > > If the patch is directly sent to checkpatch@dpdk.org, the author receive the report (success or failure). > If the patch is sent to the mailing list, he receives only the failure and can check success on patchwork. > I don't see the point of receiving success reports if it is public.