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 99065A0C47; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:00:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2011B4116B; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:00:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21ACA40151; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:00:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9804580E5E; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:00:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= xqgOyzqm+3T1kjt49zeI3c1qPiCi53p8D18utLmxC4A=; b=NhhkF2gmiliXX7fy SAM4qaki4JHPaj3f5Dwk1Tj80usCWFSSrnlL5vyEWa22KEn05lxaSFvRblFu7BQQ CoG8aAiL34zQL8Rw4i++Eap3MhK3SN3cF1br4gu9vWZdVntUbcG/uSqknG2pp251 3HdYm8p/wQTZaRZ9fRS3/poGFGycxIcahKj5j/MgaKl88//GfIjSm7h4P4bf0dnm vKjn7OskIS7IckhPVKcVvwKZG+jd1PTb2QLADobo8aVmSimd91GI+h2QlabacSIK dO4U45RVG9sg9YeXLGT/ZRBODVL6007q/p6oDD6ZjmQmd11j2qM+WCpqKsgBznxb yJ8jfQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=xqgOyzqm+3T1kjt49zeI3c1qPiCi53p8D18utLmxC 4A=; b=XL7XmR+LY3SmUUGPMrBb1Le7EDvHRxnK2tRw8rbuXcQaRAJOQVLPvgHbB nQdZ5tsgG4ymfOYLUl/LaVJhG/PJC9GUBdpNjC/jJeDdDTEa0bC3RaUmjN1C2aIK oG6ygpgJVkwxfY5MQnxPTHxCD3J/o6Ngt5m+But5IJsqphzhdLACL7qF0uOhMTxZ Oezsik+MZWA9dAFgmnt+nt+QS7nwBFtOA+cNOPOTc/hrUqiTi6dOJbaX+Zdd+2Uj vivcBqX7YzAWcCCIBzComqE6i+P9W9A78NkIBTwXj/TkNB2xyQmSb4bdhF9iqnqi DuGZ+dRLEGmIKwO1KgngOJuYYs9ZA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddtkedgieelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeethedtieevhfeigeejleegudefjeehkeekteeuveeiuedvveeu tdejveehveetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:00:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lincoln Lavoie , Ferruh Yigit , ci@dpdk.org Cc: Thinh Tran , Brandon Lo , "Zhang, Qi Z" , dev , "Yang, Qiming" , "ci@dpdk.org" , Aaron Conole , dpdklab , "Singh, Aman Deep" , David Marchand , Juraj =?utf-8?B?TGlua2XFoQ==?= Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 16:00:10 +0200 Message-ID: <3156763.r42A1DCDKm@thomas> In-Reply-To: <9901ec83acf8460b9ed748d67121c05d@pantheon.tech> References: <9901ec83acf8460b9ed748d67121c05d@pantheon.tech> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-ci] RHEL7 failures X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 12/10/2021 15:50, Juraj Linke=C5=A1: > I'm used to Gerrit where reruns on a given version always run with the sa= me parent commit. I think this makes sense since this would give us a way t= o rerun with the same parent and the latest parent (using a new upload). Al= so, the version we're trying to rerun may no longer apply to the current HE= AD, so it makes sense from this point of view as well. If a patch doesn't apply, it is good to trigger it in CI. When sending a patch, the expectation is to apply to the latest HEAD, without knowing exactly neither when it will be effectively applied, nor when the CI will run any test. PS: please do not top-post. > Juraj >=20 > From: ci On Behalf Of Lincoln Lavoie > All, >=20 > That raises the question, for the planned work to allow triggering rebuil= ds / reruns through patchwork, what is the expected behavior, rerun exactly= what was run before, or move to the current pointer (assuming it's moved o= n) and build/run on top of that? What best aligns with everyone's expectat= ions, so we don't get confusion, etc.? >=20 > Cheers, > Lincoln