From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F21FA00E6 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:41:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670A31BC02; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:41:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684961B9D9 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:41:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA39321FE0; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:41:06 -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=mesmtp; bh=YbIyiFIc0OWuRUGy75jh7i4O4sUvYToG5j0/Sa3ObSw=; b=JIdVXzJeHbPC tbbL+oskIqMulxUJxWw3IlAxTvhybsxCIDf7qMAvn/MV/JXpGxoPXsgvS2zN0x6Y TOlze1izzUrEEushAbumxeTt1g79ZeOyKroCWFtk5HGCHCWQ+JechaAGoNI9wwep /WBJw6GXVkOSnFCdiPW0f3jd35WHeuE= 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=fm2; bh=YbIyiFIc0OWuRUGy75jh7i4O4sUvYToG5j0/Sa3Ob Sw=; b=4ULy7RXGmVfT26pPt2Ugmr0SYXUm+IoGPtzbxjY6bOpf9kdmAC0nxc5Hd wCBgvxs/vmzozPbug7Omozpo/p3+9/hnGA/C5eVTt4ziZRKiwCN8geEkEs6x7MKg xpBMA0LcU5S0miS2mHiWqxSQTmRWxc5ZD61GjlYl9XAP1yqKgf/Dm9hpPJ2OspgA 9Z29kgdhPRX8OyP0zujJAhPxDyR4I81X0aTRg0vN/yzphScekr+4hgk9pTvwWEVI Jj+YFRi0hMdsob+8wpQ7kn/b2Jqnl9ugxzlPLqfahVfMhbZ46KeaaN3ZsswM5xAC 3H4TvHj2aBcQBYEJs+m8YuRH+nBKQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrfeekgddvlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucffoh hmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfr rghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenuc evlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt 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 497FFE4173; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jeremy Plsek Cc: Ali Alnubani , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "ci@dpdk.org" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:41:03 +0200 Message-ID: <2581335.NoBSEKiLG5@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <20190216160206.11957-1-alialnu@mellanox.com> <1669577.NWkuDTEeDI@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [PATCH v4] add script to decide best tree match for patches 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" 19/04/2019 20:06, Jeremy Plsek: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:55 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 19/04/2019 19:33, Jeremy Plsek: > > > I thinks so. Only more patchsets will tell, but that could be improved > > > after the fact. So I think it's fine to merge it in. > > > > > > At first glance, the only part that I don't think is implemented is > > > mentioned here: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166#c35 > > > > We must match the common prefix of the git trees. > > > > Examples: > > > > dpdk-next-net-intel + dpdk = dpdk > > > > dpdk-next-net-intel + dpdk-next-net-mlx = dpdk-next-net > > > Since some of the patches are being set to dpdk-next-net-mlx instead > > > of dpdk-next-net. But I'm fine with how it is right now and wouldn't > > > mind it getting changed to this later on. > > > > It is supposed to be fixed. > > Please could you give an example of a misbehaviour? > > The most recent example is series 4380. For me, that returned dpdk-next-net-mlx. The series 4380 is mlx only, so it fine to match dpdk-next-net-mlx. Why do you expect something else?