From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Cc: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
ci@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: Apply Patchseries Script
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:31:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8yrNuF-nV5jbZ_QyFOgSnj8_oin6n4D_4ub-iGf3A1VWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7ty1gqo63t.fsf@redhat.com>
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 2:05 PM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:22 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> >
> > 27/09/2023 18:31, Patrick Robb:
> >
> > > 2. Do not apply and run if the series is an RFC series
> >
> > Not sure about this requirement.
> > What is the problem in running tests on RFC?
> >
> > I see that currently ovsrobot and UNH Lab have rules saying don't test on RFC series, and Loongson and Intel do test on
> > RFC series. I'm guessing the thinking was something like "RFC patches are at least one stage away from merge, and
> > probably do not represent the final state of the patch, so CI testing is not very valuable." On the other hand, I'm sure in
> > many cases getting that early feedback, even for an RFC, is helpful to developers. I'll bring it up in the CI testing
> > meeting tomorrow and see if any of the CI testing people have an opinion. Anyways, I think all labs should have the
> > same policy, be it testing or not testing on RFC patches.
>
> We do currently skip running RFCs as well. IIRC they were eating into
> our timing budget on Travis, and we never bothered to re-evaluate after
> the switch to github actions. I think it would be good to discuss it.
I once missed some issues in a RFC of mine that I only discovered when
sending the first non-RFC patch.
As far as time budget is concerned now, I don't think testing RFC is
that much of an issue.
We have way more people sending 3-4 revisions in a single day than
people sending RFCs :-).
--
David Marchand
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-28 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-27 16:31 Patrick Robb
2023-09-27 20:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-09-28 0:16 ` Patrick Robb
2023-09-28 12:05 ` Aaron Conole
2023-09-28 12:31 ` David Marchand [this message]
2023-09-28 12:06 ` Aaron Conole
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJFAV8yrNuF-nV5jbZ_QyFOgSnj8_oin6n4D_4ub-iGf3A1VWw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=aconole@redhat.com \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=probb@iol.unh.edu \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).