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 B2F1042657; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 02:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941C14029D; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 02:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f49.google.com (mail-oo1-f49.google.com [209.85.161.49]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099BA40150 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 02:16:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-57b6c7d0cabso6025575eaf.1 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:16:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1695860193; x=1696464993; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1Ly2GpYUC/aRQQjXVZwU85VOeq7GKQnXCN9+nOVkAYI=; b=WVzNsisiwBr/g96E79vmPJCYHZwB6xNDPBaekG8fsYdbUfks5rzl7Xvft7aI2dbZVb mqK9z2ScQLb+g2POzVb3/q0nhnyLT/Ud8TNxeSsWSPIV+h24azTZHPxje0xGkYdSiS0P qETEBqMX6ycALWZjXEugTyQNrgL0JjCVPoV8A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695860193; x=1696464993; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1Ly2GpYUC/aRQQjXVZwU85VOeq7GKQnXCN9+nOVkAYI=; b=GNlpg5qnxVv1Dj8LvzXhjfNCMLMIgWjpbeWWdGad7CSUAwZ0/huFIFrnTxZCsovDsU Pe5AhK+IKvMAIx34W5GrltljleCTG3SLzjph1xkaBStiNQQJiuOobvySiGg4fvaTb68A bXi4gQyErKAb2cfNCXz+gJ3SmASE2QcoKLUSx+C8h1w2scLTz0+IZLOiLNyZLBb6GviJ Mk82fFdw5Mmv9eWDqrcVa4wLu/ljqPGcyHrrsUcqN134L+NnWvRVNDSHlhWga8TsOie9 kqYBy4LdoykVVF3ihWd6N6jol9lduDGDUou/2X4fj3kGf9zh+tAt0Lnh5/70GLUoY4AD P1eg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzd/Pwlc2a+Ekh2up3IXzfWzdTbM/cTdqtdsDgEqOKKbYYzjlaS tLgyw1lEHWLjVtrTcxraDwCjaOKRubvT5WcDe2XqVkPo5KgQ+0d7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEPeHcx8zqkc48XOpwygvXU4Go6uLo7ln92M3mV2G+A0/rGNgIZU/W7KJukyWvlnV+j6xER0p/XMT6M0T3rFf0= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:3045:0:b0:57b:8ff1:f482 with SMTP id z5-20020a4a3045000000b0057b8ff1f482mr3803238ooz.0.1695860193222; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:16:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26230939.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> In-Reply-To: <26230939.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> From: Patrick Robb Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:16:22 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Apply Patchseries Script To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: ci@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067fdae0606603853" 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 --00000000000067fdae0606603853 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:22=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon 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. Thanks for the feedback. --00000000000067fdae0606603853 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:22=E2=80=AFPM T= homas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.n= et> 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=C2=A0and UNH Lab have r= ules 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 pat= ches 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, eve= n for an RFC, is helpful to developers. I'll bring it up in the CI test= ing meeting tomorrow and see if any of the CI testing people have an opinio= n. Anyways, I think all labs should have the same policy, be it testing or = not testing on RFC patches.=C2=A0

Thanks for the f= eedback.=C2=A0

--00000000000067fdae0606603853--