From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC12A0524 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:57:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F49040143; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:57:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EE74003E for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:57:15 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619513834; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ag781AuIl3vQf9WIlr/R/07MUCIrdft6YgthpT2+4VM=; b=BKpZDPm9gm16jXROgNPPn/9VeEdeslsVpgCv0PJFXCukDooD3HwcUbaxwtTyHRcfk9OISg 0qN7FExOQKgsZ9DUsMdmJVP7wmi9WkkjqInayBeQtUv0Q+ctCOLIuW0AhRY8km5nVoUY5m +9LdvJirgbSiRLdqiQFYOSEMHeewi3w= Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-201-4w_ix1amMWKNaDCiSUUTAg-1; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:57:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4w_ix1amMWKNaDCiSUUTAg-1 Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id m21-20020a67e0d50000b0290225977f4553so2077063vsl.10 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:57:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ag781AuIl3vQf9WIlr/R/07MUCIrdft6YgthpT2+4VM=; b=VMPVwKLt7NPabxfPdTSQMTAigpgElZV9/qcNBmfQ+90djHbV06vZALFc1+ZLPqrd2l VtaPyIi4Swf5lXHMje0NGPBWIYVgP3judEDqcHbpsatw8B5BxJx+k1FWmQB8L5twsYo3 gYXSHfnGweZ1u09yg9sAAMoZYl4UczDsDGFJJD/fTgRQ4jGyR2wgFZhuRIwPL+AAKYg0 W674Rn1a5RVjKmdNNTbB3UIELY+q91r+OL2fUVysbbu8m5kYvp4IL6CpDbxYwrAWOq5x 3i5PrsxH5xwX5g+ZnrLjDuLZOpLlEnMl67X70BIzhLY/6DpTRZrRZVvn9eNOBOB62Ant aq1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321zVnVEQyT8+a0T5jQDd2i3JNPc+Uw9Ck484ZCzKx3qZ6n29Pt l8uKHvGlvshUXtPItMeYzkT31H2obWNvUOUpgAJqBuuOD1QHnL7E9aImuYPkDvq1YaEYAavNQbe EgtHG4B5u9PZfaV921g== X-Received: by 2002:a67:e317:: with SMTP id j23mr16833752vsf.17.1619513830359; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:57:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZSqdB2U88uoc5r2+gCDYjl525KyneOk/sZtdO2FKyNVfWfYfZF/LhrpEfYUV4ojOkznPna4W7ZJ8prZxLUek= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e317:: with SMTP id j23mr16833743vsf.17.1619513830147; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 01:57:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210413150425.GA1185@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <2009041.gKtNCFKaKa@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:56:58 +0200 Message-ID: To: Aaron Conole Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Bruce Richardson , dev , ci@dpdk.org, Michael Santana , Lincoln Lavoie , dpdklab Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Proposal for allowing rerun of tests X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:03 PM Aaron Conole wrote: > >> > > First question: WHO should be allowed to ask for a re-run? > >> > > - everybody > >> > > - patchwork delegate > >> > > >> > Patchwork delegate requires to maintain a map between pw logins and an > >> > actual mail address (if we go with email for the second point). > >> > > >> > > - a list of maintainers > >> > > >> > I'd vote on any maintainer from MAINTAINERS, _but_ it must be from the > >> > files in the repo, not in the series being tested. > >> > So maybe the easier is to have an explicit list... ? > > I agree with using the MAINTAINERS file from the repo. > > >> > > >> > - author > >> > Just listing this option for discussion, but this is dangerous, as any > >> > user could then call reruns. > >> > > >> > >> I would tend towards including this, on the basis that any author can > >> already get a re-run just be resubmitting a new version of their patchset. > >> This just simplifies that for all concerned. > > > > I agree, and it would be very convenient for authors hitting > > a strange failure: they can double check without bothering maintainers. > > +1 Ok for me. -- David Marchand