From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3AEA0556; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:35:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA55825B3; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:35:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA6223D for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:35:35 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1582209334; 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=uq6Hh06GPIY5nZLPUI3e8FQr4qroMDPuwetIpxJsLBg=; b=jP+It3Oesbnl9EZCibH56232SqEWoiEt+/zc0H7LCavIk6mPI5K/YJIOb7cUZirgrNQi0M Y0cjKuyan/lEsq0ubjIFbG1eBEaLcuDTFD6jjn8oo9sN3Ze2Pqs2HnTtxt7ZGfWKzBLGns m3RWXVmQZMinDvRst8e86FluontfWrs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-416-gp3e6kC3MMuPZUE_bSYcOA-1; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:35:28 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A1C18C43C1; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.126]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63F419756; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:35:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: David Marchand Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev , Michael Santana , Bruce Richardson References: <20200219194131.29417-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20200219194131.29417-5-david.marchand@redhat.com> <3732162.jZfb76A358@xps> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:35:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: (David Marchand's message of "Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:22:54 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-MC-Unique: gp3e6kC3MMuPZUE_bSYcOA-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ci: reorganise Travis jobs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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" David Marchand writes: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Thomas Monjalon wr= ote: >> >> 19/02/2020 22:39, Aaron Conole: >> > David Marchand writes: >> > >> > > Let's prune the jobs list to limit the amount of time spent by the r= obot >> > > in Travis. >> > > >> > > Since meson enables automatically the relevant components, there is = not >> > > much gain in testing with extra_packages vs required_packages only. >> > > >> > > For a given arch/compiler/env combination, compilation is first test= ed >> > > in all jobs that run tests or build the docs or run the ABI checks. >> > > In the same context, for jobs that accumulates running tests, buildi= ng >> > > the docs etc..., those steps are independent and can be split to sav= e >> > > some cpu on Travis. >> > > >> > > With this, we go down from 21 to 15 jobs. >> > > >> > > Note: this patch requires a flush of the existing caches in Travis. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand >> > > --- >> > >> > In general, I think the idea with required vs. extra was to have a bui= ld >> > that did the minimum required, and one that did all the packages (to >> > allow a minimum vs. full DPDK). >> > >> > At least, that's from >> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124007.html >> >> I think the benefit of a minimum build is to have a quick report, >> and easy to setup. > > Yes, Travis serves as a first gate when submitting patches. > But since Travis is best effort/free, we can't have a full coverage. > > >> > Not sure if that's still something anyone cares about. >> >> Given that Travis knows how to satisfy the dependencies, >> and that we must wait for all jobs to finish, >> I don't see any benefit of a minimal setup. > > This minimal setup also tests that dpdk dependencies are correct. > If a change makes something rely on libX and libX is in the packages > always installed in Travis, the missing dependency would not get > caught. > > But here, this adds too many jobs. > > UNH, Intel and other CIs should step in and fill this kind of gap. Okay, makes sense to me. Are one of these CI providers offering to cover this? Also, Acked-by: Aaron Conole > > -- > David Marchand