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 E9824A00C3; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:59:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1E04069D; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:59:59 +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 F04C14067B for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:59:57 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1655971197; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XFlrU2YK2Th4Pn1oynDnqf1pDfDB5ssMD+UO2Yt3NH4=; b=QJUAG8YiqxDSVPJCbh4IGr3neJPHuh56X0viEKtYFwpQ6jw5dWoo3pUDYInCdBUjaTjPK9 RL+Uwe3yPcs8Cu1yG4pslkgk9n3GQxqa7An6PYvtDrDLiwFFUKFnyq66/oaUZrPUorArzE pDEdy55AmOZEuKaXJj2B+H5waTfVLf4= Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-379-yuAplc9oNNCBgPIUKswwPg-1; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 03:59:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: yuAplc9oNNCBgPIUKswwPg-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id br5-20020a056512400500b00479a5157134so9602324lfb.5 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 00:59:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XFlrU2YK2Th4Pn1oynDnqf1pDfDB5ssMD+UO2Yt3NH4=; b=zIctfmj9rAsoQH2h61tJvGxv4OMTQ98UrzEWCgjLW7Nz3IJ2bkDOlInEF+Y+kxkNFr f3MpsiNhUKAwiuUGVRHyKb+Gh2ZAN1JJE6kQ3WA0S/o2HIOdJEjIH5CFwBkMD2lQHw6S +bdt0fM7wPiziJrGGvfo/c1h1nnxciw8XklibxY1NWTZ/a+yyvghKR22eDitqHRwZIhs qoLo6L3MhEYL2WKuigTGIpW5mlfMeiHZEFr8I/fPKw/wgKD6WdxofaZWEu0pZOCptJFX vReLtNv33e0EkOvOJX1Q6YNaYunC/fMLPdTiPWP212u/95ihJfohpUjQudCPMD67Hs4I UQ2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/1TTp/5n0q5wwbxMSxy1WLMYxRujmyT4sNZeU2WwUAltS+POZz edrNJchsbQT4v//qYkRuI4DA34sv8oNHvysW9WkvA6+1EyzwUD1JyGKEPQlDuajoemymMd8M8bg jVqkwUHrsv5PZC+tf8iY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6e0c:0:b0:255:98fb:cb45 with SMTP id j12-20020a2e6e0c000000b0025598fbcb45mr4137632ljc.55.1655971194770; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 00:59:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sIpbJ3Bfk8kWDcFKoJr+QqDk1JVUPUZIiy3B89UmIKckk8Twb9BRvDX6XwB/xDBKUQ7iyfdSWBHwhfw/vNbuY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6e0c:0:b0:255:98fb:cb45 with SMTP id j12-20020a2e6e0c000000b0025598fbcb45mr4137625ljc.55.1655971194523; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 00:59:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220112065019.58924-1-jsoref@gmail.com> <2566114.Isy0gbHreE@thomas> <5790133.UjTJXf6HLC@thomas> In-Reply-To: <5790133.UjTJXf6HLC@thomas> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:59:43 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ci: restrict concurrency To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Aaron Conole , dev , Josh Soref Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:44 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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. You can manually (in the GHA webui) interrupt an older build if you pushed to a same branch. > > > > 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? I prefer the current behavior too. Marking patch as rejected. -- David Marchand