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 C0C0E43B6B; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 06:55:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9979402DA; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 06:55:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-oo1-f54.google.com (mail-oo1-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7B240281 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 06:55:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oo1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-59fcb025b99so257910eaf.0 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:55:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1708581331; x=1709186131; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wnJg7bTnIMb8IEwoXfbPuyTNrp6kJ3biTF7j4nIPbVo=; b=D2VHhwAzgSsyfh+Wi8Faab/gaXX7r4yqMyDwqIIDvIvzfKNb9/KqbwdTBnQ8wFIBbs FLK2pogoK0GpVVV4sJP6IPMf5hcu/0ZzZSaKoDbx0ykfc0ZcvkWjga8FGIF5YubeRi40 HOACN3EfhuMJZdHO32EAMWpmYPopEWVpfRpWY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708581331; x=1709186131; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wnJg7bTnIMb8IEwoXfbPuyTNrp6kJ3biTF7j4nIPbVo=; b=DaVTfSKVxFuOjIYvd+yEUUFQL5fwQ3KUwUjdGNdTqiJV+d4Q9aRwN/ti25au1uM3XG rEql7lLHOTHE3s/ZLUq8O9SvlIp1MGVhAgtzfGCNW+FUdvfn46uFqrfMsqgg9A+msFai ZIAipxqfJmvjVnjOEe2xfkhYek+FXuwlCp3ITGJTRDc0/I0LUSVDyxtDVhiTYVhUbUwK GKaiLscL1zvYCfi7tS8F3xEjxLrKLmh+7s4adWySd7jsxqAxmMCCHE2ep0sS7Asp2TBN IkeA4vnozXIAeefvUicwkAHRz2qyc89mwuvzc2D1VuGLa/i8dZ9QA8o09U8Wu1rBsKTg GXCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyv3vrzyz2gsRiCq6yYkQsbZ0gZXhRvaxa1NPv9DMHQ5OYtV4qq xdd7zmL5NvSQ7uNtK3VVb08NeWIEKI84MLt9Xd5CR4E2rHu84grWTX+CkyAlp/Y9EYuU5Z1ywtB dTDhYCjC7gXv1O0g3CIQWeXWhEATdd7moMQFCWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGjWXK05lUS9sC4Szvx8JnjStZOoQs9+YGGgYGKj9XPtl17AtnrDSHMWCN+1meG1Xh6/r/gbsCz+HR9WetvCP0= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:58d2:0:b0:5a0:2cb6:2ccd with SMTP id f201-20020a4a58d2000000b005a02cb62ccdmr307204oob.0.1708581331002; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:55:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Patrick Robb Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 00:55:20 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab To: zhoumin Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , David Marchand Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004dff100611f21745" 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 --0000000000004dff100611f21745 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Zhoumin, I wanted to reach out to you about the possibility of adding the Loongson lab to the group of labs supporting the email based retest framework. Currently, the UNH Community Lab and also the GitHub Robot are supporting patch retest requests from emails, and we would like to extend that to all the publicly reporting CI labs, if possible. For context, the original announcement: https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/CAC-YWqiXqBYyzPsc4UD7LbUHKha_Vb3=Aot+dQomuRLojy2hvA@mail.gmail.com/ Aaron announcing support for the github robot: https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/f7tedfooq6k.fsf@redhat.com/ And the retest framework definition on the dpdk.org testing page: https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-retest So a format like: Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance, iol-unit-arm64-testing, github-robot Is current accepted, and it would be great if we could add Loongson support to the list too. What we are supporting right now is doing retesting on the original DPDK artifact created for a patch when that patch was submitted. But we are also thinking of adding in rebasing off of tip of branch as a v2 feature. Does this sound possible for the Loonson lab? I know you are leveraging the dpdk-ci repo for standing up your CI testing, but I don't know specifically whether that lends itself well towards doing retests later, or if that would be a big technical challenge. Let me know! If it is possible for the Loongson lab, maybe we can discuss in the March 7 CI Testing meeting? --0000000000004dff100611f21745 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=C2=A0Zhoumin,

I wanted to reach out = to you about the possibility of adding the Loongson lab to the group of lab= s supporting the email based retest framework. Currently, the UNH Community= Lab and also the GitHub Robot are supporting patch retest requests from em= ails, and we would like to extend that to all the publicly=C2=A0reporting C= I labs, if possible.=C2=A0

For context, the origin= al announcement:https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/= CAC-YWqiXqBYyzPsc4UD7LbUHKha_Vb3=3DAot+dQomuRLojy2hvA@mail.gmail.com/

Aaron announcing support for the github robot:=C2= =A0https:= //inbox.dpdk.org/ci/f7tedfooq6k.fsf@redhat.com/

And the retest framework definition on the dp= dk.org testing page:=C2=A0https://core.dpdk.org/testing/#requesting-a-patch-r= etest

So a format like:

Recheck-request: iol-compile-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance, io= l-unit-arm64-testing, github-robot

Is current = accepted, and it would=C2=A0be great if we could add Loongson support to th= e list too. What we are supporting right=C2=A0now is doing retesting on the= original DPDK artifact created for a patch when that patch was submitted. = But we are also thinking of adding in rebasing off of tip of branch as a v2= feature.=C2=A0

Does this sound possible for the L= oonson lab? I know you are leveraging the dpdk-ci repo for standing up your= CI testing, but I don't know specifically whether that lends itself we= ll towards doing retests later, or if that would be a big technical challen= ge. Let me know!=C2=A0

If it is possible for the= =C2=A0Loongson lab, maybe we can discuss in the March 7 CI Testing meeting?=
--0000000000004dff100611f21745--