* [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports @ 2020-01-10 10:15 David Marchand 2020-01-10 11:41 ` Xu, Qian Q 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: David Marchand @ 2020-01-10 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ci; +Cc: Zhang, XuemingX, Chen, Zhaoyan, Qian Xu 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. -- David Marchand ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports 2020-01-10 10:15 [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports David Marchand @ 2020-01-10 11:41 ` Xu, Qian Q 2020-01-10 13:07 ` Thomas Monjalon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Xu, Qian Q @ 2020-01-10 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Marchand, ci; +Cc: Zhang, XuemingX, Chen, Zhaoyan Good catch, thx David Xueming, could you help check? Thx. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 6:16 PM > To: ci@dpdk.org > Cc: Zhang, XuemingX <xuemingx.zhang@intel.com>; Chen, Zhaoyan > <zhaoyan.chen@intel.com>; Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com> > Subject: Intel CI reports > > 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. > > > -- > David Marchand ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports 2020-01-10 11:41 ` Xu, Qian Q @ 2020-01-10 13:07 ` Thomas Monjalon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2020-01-10 13:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhang, XuemingX, Chen, Zhaoyan, Xu, Qian Q Cc: David Marchand, ci, ferruh.yigit, john.mcnamara, tim.odriscoll, aconole 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-01-10 13:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-01-10 10:15 [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports David Marchand 2020-01-10 11:41 ` Xu, Qian Q 2020-01-10 13:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).