Re: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss the opens

["Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:19 PM
To: Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
Cc: ci@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss the opens

2016-11-15 10:11, Xu, Qian Q:
> > Which tests will be run in this CI instance?
> Here I prefer only performance test in the reference lab. 

Could you explain why you prefer having only performance test in the reference lab?
Could it be regular performance tests + per-patch performance tests?

--- I guess we may have limited budget(correct me if we are very rich, then I am fine to put more things in it!), then we may need make the maximum use of the money. Performance is the key for dpdk, so we can focus on performance test in the open lab. 
As the previous discussion, besides me, some people also think that performance test reports should be provided in an open lab. 
Just quote Jerome's words here, and I agreed with it. Besides that, I only think we may use the performance lab as the demo or training lab for more audiences. 
The performance can be the regular performance test with the software traffic generator as first step. We may think about per-patch performance test later, maybe per-patchset is more accurate. And we'd better to solve the multiple repos' apply issue. 

"Hi Thomas & Qian,
> IMHO, performance results should be centralized and executed in a
> trusted & controlled environment.
> If official DPDK numbers are coming from private lab's vendors,
> perception might be that they are not 100% neutral. That would probably
> not help DPDK community to be seen open & transparent."


I mean not a phone meeting but a chat meeting instead.
I suggest using a dedicated room #dpdk-ci on freenode.
----OK, I haven't had that meeting before may need your help to know how to dial in from PRC.