DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
To: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>,
	 Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>,
	ci@dpdk.org,  dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:53:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7tzfuu6rcm.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJvnSUD0+W16wRATb8ZGHJu3Rs_GZ54J3+skHW_=owBb03RyUw@mail.gmail.com> (Patrick Robb's message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:30:13 -0400")

Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:37 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>
>>
>> One more thing I want to confirm is whether we should apply the patch
>> onto the branch commit which existed at the time when that patch was
>> submitted or onto the latest tip of branch if users request doing
>> rebase. Users probably request a recheck with `rebase` when the CI lab
>> chose a wrong branch onto which apply the patch. I worry we may
>> encounter conflicts when apply the patch onto the latest commit of the
>> target branch if that branch is just updated before the request.
>>
>>
>
> That's a good edge case to think about...  but I also think if the
> patch no longer applies cleanly on tip of intended branch, then we
> would be correct to report an apply failure there. And then the
> submitter should refactor their patch so it applies, and submit again.

+1

> So I think the process is like
>
> A) If retest is requested without rebase key, then retest "original"
> dpdk artifact (either by re-using the existing tarball (unh lab) or
> tracking the commit from submit time and re-applying onto dpdk at that
> commit (loongson)).
>
> B) If rebase key is included, apply to tip of the indicated branch.
> If, because the branch has changed, the patch no longer applies, then
> we can report an apply failure. Then, submitter has to refactor their
> patch and resubmit.

That makes sense to me.

> In either case, report the new results with an updated test result in
> the email (i.e. report "_Testing PASS RETEST #1" instead of "_Testing
> PASS" in the email body).

Ack - makes sense here too.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-19 17:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-20 15:21 Patrick Robb
2024-02-20 18:12 ` Aaron Conole
2024-02-20 18:24   ` Patrick Robb
2024-03-01 14:36     ` zhoumin
2024-03-04 15:21       ` Aaron Conole
2024-03-07 17:06         ` Adam Hassick
2024-03-18 15:59           ` Patrick Robb
2024-03-19  8:36             ` zhoumin
2024-03-19 17:30               ` Patrick Robb
2024-03-19 17:53                 ` Aaron Conole [this message]
2024-03-20  1:35                 ` zhoumin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f7tzfuu6rcm.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=aconole@redhat.com \
    --cc=ahassick@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=ci@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=probb@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=zhoumin@loongson.cn \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).