From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04000379E for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:38:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2016 02:38:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,494,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="901558701" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2016 02:38:21 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx157.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.73) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:38:21 -0800 Received: from shsmsx103.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.69) by FMSMSX157.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:38:20 -0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.239]) by SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:38:19 +0800 From: "Xu, Qian Q" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "ci@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss the opens Thread-Index: AQHSPyS8K5ypYnEuVkiRdjp53TyI1qDZzbig//+BWQCAAIadAA== Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:38:17 +0000 Message-ID: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E39258EE8@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E39258B31@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2266496.1mGR1HsFcg@xps13> <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E39258E0D@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1546832.g8oPM7Fcpv@xps13> In-Reply-To: <1546832.g8oPM7Fcpv@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss the opens 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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:38:23 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:19 PM To: Xu, Qian Q 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.=20 Could you explain why you prefer having only performance test in the refere= nce 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 us= e of the money. Performance is the key for dpdk, so we can focus on perform= ance test in the open lab.=20 As the previous discussion, besides me, some people also think that perform= ance test reports should be provided in an open lab.=20 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 a= udiences.=20 The performance can be the regular performance test with the software traff= ic generator as first step. We may think about per-patch performance test l= ater, maybe per-patchset is more accurate. And we'd better to solve the mul= tiple repos' apply issue.=20 "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.=20