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 4992A43CEC; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:53:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DF240298; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:53:22 +0100 (CET) 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 E711240041 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:53:20 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710870800; 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=S9AXQBUWW068+MJ6phXqIduObaIJaBmV46l76x1lWe8=; b=C/ksL6mIUEbQ/KvJy54DOMp6O8CVu+8OB6k1IigRTWgDbUuzhqDfbYXDD2kO9SaG/J2ktk NrleaMuOqVXHZxbi3vgkOer60a1srj0HJoTLagRpXNH92W5LTT4mjQVVvpeDVDpnwRXtDU 9Ostl9aDflwy/4zg/Cdbv5kFyz4zQYQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-471-WXD_7m6IMEu533vHZpnl0g-1; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:53:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: WXD_7m6IMEu533vHZpnl0g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B4A1C07F47; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:53:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A05A1C060A4; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:53:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Patrick Robb Cc: zhoumin , Adam Hassick , ci@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature References: <2640cd5b-ea3d-cd74-d5c0-eb776e880b13@loongson.cn> <0e26774c-db4d-61d3-88d9-f505be59c083@loongson.cn> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:53:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Patrick Robb's message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:30:13 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Patrick Robb writes: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:37=E2=80=AFAM zhoumin wro= te: >> >> >> 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.