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 29C3C42661; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:05:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B85640273; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:05:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5C74021D for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:05:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1695902745; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aWR5JNYJFwrXZXWbKpcaFHzfO+S2wnlR9VEbyRDzH9U=; b=DBH86Ff1hYSd//JYKQXnMsWObqlnFygEDs2P/zqxl/u6KUWxswVJsYRw3Q8wsoy/nsHm0h dHzkUKZlqgEAWOR4BF70PIX5vXktmXtGQWiRoxumVpH8UzciPxPHSh/Sq/3lMQUhHxIk8v 6dfCjVaJKW2ziL5VVkio2l2+REZmzx4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-463-6Y56eXwTMp-38Y9cT-C8Cw-1; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:05:43 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 6Y56eXwTMp-38Y9cT-C8Cw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5806D29AA382; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (unknown [10.22.10.131]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A3A492C37; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:05:42 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Patrick Robb Cc: Thomas Monjalon , ci@dpdk.org Subject: Re: Apply Patchseries Script References: <26230939.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:05:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Patrick Robb's message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2023 20:16:22 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Patrick Robb writes: > 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 de= velopers. 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.=20 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. > Thanks for the feedback.=20