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 CC33BA0524 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:17:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37FF16111F; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:17:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A58E1610C4; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:17:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C079B5C010A; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:17:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= 6S89Mo/H9UZAHVxqHl88hgABIfTi1ff3cjVTIrRcn2M=; b=E7a6JT++IctLDz+x 1DdOXwE051q1ILcBn9pGbpqkmnIO6uQ2rwA44KfrQcy6HbwIy/COcAqC7sV0OW6T Y19Xw2ppUclKcdc8b0u5OzE2nNfl/EdyJDOMIEI8MobTlxOODgW4FFjAnZBqgg4r PeEVOrDldzcA/TIH5f9L6ErEOCzI1uWuoZ9LrAtFrAgVDixB2yUIL7cFwgXDQKd7 eE/vJEl7sO0NwV4CkK33DuSnrv+X+0Uuymv6I5R7RvVRJGXe7DnYfYXJdUmmqvCd 6h8EmDt1GjWLv6XTmmP+lhp5p62ml/1EZIn2In/bLoNcBmp9ARv317hK482bQx3y 0bqkUQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=6S89Mo/H9UZAHVxqHl88hgABIfTi1ff3cjVTIrRcn 2M=; b=E79M4MQhnNEoMojNiFhJPckGnjPE89JHzZUNWhBWmeojn4+vJ8XeG80F7 99shpfSoxpb2A2+saIiYatRoWohqKfBWeelukHj3GZvH2XbTZshiNhI2x8+Fgd3P 4roE2FMVnfx5bab1mLiYz3mB6gJ1W+aKXLzNh39EfyWwUfxgqD/o/2nc0UxnVvTg ZtO790+HMTFqhvSkOy4G4/lHvoHy/KsLLBuqtyAT+6pBD6KuSS4y3hn9T68OzYE+ V/j0EZ8K1hyofIke7dHPbOzIGZFmZ3X4xTy5304j4x6diIvYOIEr5JiwNEUZj8Qt /T4cHRLPwPnJ/B7IyFDHbZwjxHa0g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudekledgkeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0572D240054; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:17:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand , Bruce Richardson Cc: Aaron Conole , dev , ci@dpdk.org, Michael Santana , Lincoln Lavoie , dpdklab Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:17:06 +0200 Message-ID: <2009041.gKtNCFKaKa@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210413150425.GA1185@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20210413150425.GA1185@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdk-dev] [RFC] Proposal for allowing rerun of tests X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 13/04/2021 17:04, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:59:00PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:47 PM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > 13/04/2021 15:50, Aaron Conole: > > > > > > > One proposal we (Michael and I) have toyed with for our lab is having > > > > the infrastructure monitor patchwork comments for a restart flag, and > > > > kick off based on that information. Patchwork tracks all of the > > > > comments for each patch / series so we could look at the series that > > > > are still in a state for 'merging' (new, assigned, etc) and check the > > > > patch .comments API for new comments. Getting the data from PW should > > > > be pretty simple - but I think that knowing whether to kick off the > > > > test might be more difficult. We have concerns about which messages we > > > > should accept (for example, can anyone ask for a series to be rerun, and > > > > we'll need to track which rerun messages we've accepted). The > > > > convention needs to be something we all can work with (ie: /Re-check: > > > > [checkname] or something as a single line in the email). > > > > > > > > This is just a start to identify and explain the concern. Maybe there > > > > are other issues we've not considered, or maybe folks think this is a > > > > terrible idea not worth spending any time developing. I think there's > > > > enough use for it that I am raising it here, and we can discuss it. > > > > > > First question: WHO should be allowed to ask for a re-run? > > > - everybody > > > - patchwork delegate > > > > Patchwork delegate requires to maintain a map between pw logins and an > > actual mail address (if we go with email for the second point). > > > > > - a list of maintainers > > > > I'd vote on any maintainer from MAINTAINERS, _but_ it must be from the > > files in the repo, not in the series being tested. > > So maybe the easier is to have an explicit list... ? > > > > > > - author > > Just listing this option for discussion, but this is dangerous, as any > > user could then call reruns. > > > > I would tend towards including this, on the basis that any author can > already get a re-run just be resubmitting a new version of their patchset. > This just simplifies that for all concerned. I agree, and it would be very convenient for authors hitting a strange failure: they can double check without bothering maintainers.