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 DA87CA00C3; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:44:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1B440143; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:44:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA4C40140 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:44:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6223202232; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:44:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; bh=eo8xFqqZqA2ZDG 89M3stEKtHAxi1bpRrd21thioKaQM=; b=CPy6Ket7o0o+Ff2EGi3ldk2qi9zq9Z gP0nYRp66+s8oXvguf78i8SV2ilsEsRluajcp2cLN/TWtJQTcdBxGZv5vFkOs/1E AZ6/Zfh76nQACe4RTgLW6xAERHhusRXUBlMoWwhBXW9okq6ZBc5mR82SyGrsV4Y6 nul0dmZvSHgJpij9r7koaYiUs5YCn0YW0zBOAV/fFt/guZX8j2LRAwzbKltQt7B7 VLZB2h5ouCG6zexmcLjJUxmKYJlTWn/d47UGwOahOkBYxNfodeP5jL08/bsRcycs 6lAmpTfVefxfZLP2yEpOmTdf6QQ/NnU4vnsLQLkYVv9JGHS27sAaNV1A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=eo8xFqqZqA2ZDG89M3stEKtHAxi1bpRrd21thioKa QM=; b=SWOfcE4t5hRSpaTvEOdgkhCDYEFJUwdkxj1Od3kKnuAwXYmmBAa04CMf2 9rQkCe0RdMQl+cmiv4V7W93Gwnpvvw5CYLO0qlPT0NA2frN8ukbFkO7ww+8j8QzR Dw1GdrX6nc+FeghZ72v0YQjIbbPjHQJ8t5cm29wTYZYXVZLJH8+CMcHs+88mG6Ny WH6Gw2ZsweR4W7nz7yA5qHj8GuMYm5yv+wEdh+C6Ra3uF7IHvUABmREuHK/C+4xW GPDYszACjhCRpWB1tJewXRIScrEMA5ZRhhcl3nfCJou18Z4oYvBp4woIIa8/QL+e 33hoeC1sGl4gQP5HD+J9+Wfg5DZ0A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrgeejgdduheefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepuddulefhudejveetteekuefggeegiefgheeuuefggeeitddvheel ueeuiedvledvnecuffhomhgrihhnpegtohhnfhhighdrmhhinhhinecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:44:37 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Aaron Conole Cc: aconole@redhat.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org, Josh Soref Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ci: restrict concurrency Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:44:34 +0100 Message-ID: <5790133.UjTJXf6HLC@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220112065019.58924-1-jsoref@gmail.com> <2566114.Isy0gbHreE@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 03/02/2022 21:21, Aaron Conole: > Thomas Monjalon writes: > > > Aaron, David, > > Please could you review this patch? > > Thanks > > > > 13/01/2022 13:41, Josh Soref: > >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:42 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > The explanation should be in the patch, not the cover letter. > >> > Actually, you don't need a cover letter for a single patch. > >> > Copying it here: > >> > " > >> > dpdk is fairly expensive to build in GitHub. > >> > > >> > It's helpful to abandon old builds as soon as there's a new > >> > build waiting instead of wasting resources on the previous > >> > round. > >> > " > >> > > >> > 12/01/2022 07:50, Josh Soref: > >> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Soref > >> > > --- > >> > > + concurrency: > >> > > + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler > >> > }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ > >> > matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} > >> > > + cancel-in-progress: true > >> > > >> > The goal of the CI is to catch any issue in a submitted patch. > >> > Is your change cancelling a test of a patch when another one is submitted? > >> > > >> > >> If it's on the same branch or if it's in the same pull request yes, > >> otherwise, no. > > We currently have a report on every patch, which helps us when a patch > series has a breaking failure in the middle and then fixes it in a later > patch. With the mechanism you have here, we lose that ability - it is > important to have, as a `git bisect` can be broken without this feature. Good point. > How much of a problem is this in practice? I want us to be good > citizens, but also I don't want to lose the bisect-ability of the > series. Bisectability is important. So we have to reject this patch, right? Or any other idea?