Re: [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

General comment about Intel CI below.

First, let me say thanks because during years Intel was the company
doing some community CI effort.

Second, I think the maintenance of this CI should be more serious
in order to make it reliable.
Few examples:
	- here we have a fail with a success result
	- recently the CI was failing during weeks without anybody
		monitoring and noticing the issue
	- quite often, some changes are done in the platforms
		without making sure it still works

Please could you take actions to make sure such issue won't happen anymore?
As the first in the game, Intel should be a good example
to give confidence in the CI in general, and to show the example
to other companies to make the same.

Thanks


10/01/2020 12:41, Xu, Qian Q:
> Good catch, thx David
> Xueming, could you help check? Thx. 
> 
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Looking at a Intel CI report, even if the overall reported status is Success, we can
> > notice that a FC30-64 target has a FAIL status.
> > 
> > Example:
> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-January/112739.html
> > 
> > | FC30-64        | FAIL |       |      |            |           |
> >      |          |
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks.