Re: [dpdk-web] [dpdk-ci] [PATCH] add a link to the CI dashboard

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

08/11/2018 14:13, Lincoln Lavoie:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:14 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > 08/11/2018 08:46, Ali Alnubani:
> > > +  {{< button href="https://lab.dpdk.org" >}} CI Dashboard {{< /button
> >
> > It is important to keep in mind that we support a distributed CI approach.
> > This lab is an important part of the CI, but we can run other tests
> > in other labs. That's why I think we must really stick with a specific name
> > for this lab.
> > Several names were mentionned so far:
> >         - performance lab
> >         - UNH lab
> >         - reference lab
> >         - community lab
> >
> > I think we must decide which name we want to use.
> > Opinions?
> 
> Would "UNH-IOL Performance Lab" be acceptable?  I'm thinking this would be
> along the lines of Host / Purpose.  So, taking an example, if Acme hosted a
> build lab, it could be "Acme Build Lab" or something like that.  In terms
> of project branding, maybe we need to develop some messaging around how the
> labs are part of the project.  I'm thinking similar to how OPNFV has the
> "Pharos Labs," which they describe as "a federated NFV testing
> infrastructure of community labs around the world."  I think the goal would
> be to describe the labs as a community resource, supporting to DPDK project
> and it's developers.

I agree we must improve the communication about the distributed CI.
Starting with good naming is a good step for communicating :)

Let's discuss your proposal "UNH-IOL Performance Lab".
About "UNH-IOL", yes it is accurate, but we may want to show it as
THE lab which is shared by several community members, not only
the lab hosted at UNH.
About "Performance" word, I think we should avoid that name
because the lab will probably be used for functionnal testing as well.

Another proposal sent in parallel of this mail by Tim: "DPDK Open Lab".
I am in favor of "DPDK Community Lab".