From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <ci-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEDBA0524 for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBBF160FBB; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:04:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE750160FBA; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:04:33 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: ErGfbrRk3U/mYfhdRVMF+MU2Cr1f/aSoxsEU7IfQCC0yGPEmz4TgVkZ1Fh5I7DinMFEK5iAMyv kjRZV8W9PfcQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9953"; a="193993977" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,219,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="193993977" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Apr 2021 08:04:32 -0700 IronPort-SDR: X5HA5UV8Yndz0p6FgBW7GYf1kn19WHPzY6AQQSvwyUP3AfgvmPYdrvieLUaApsL1Cr58QYUPBk bfW9ze0jc5kQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,219,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="521627756" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.6.19]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Apr 2021 08:04:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:04:25 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>, ci@dpdk.org, Michael Santana <msantana@redhat.com>, Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>, dpdklab <dpdklab@iol.unh.edu> Message-ID: <20210413150425.GA1185@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <f7teefefg4v.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> <21294945.pYO5sEOfX6@thomas> <CAJFAV8yXZavoQo7PeRwsn2dDHCeV1q-geGEuKRpHOYPD41WAVA@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <CAJFAV8yXZavoQo7PeRwsn2dDHCeV1q-geGEuKRpHOYPD41WAVA@mail.gmail.com> 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 <ci.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/ci>, <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/> List-Post: <mailto:ci@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/ci>, <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" <ci-bounces@dpdk.org> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:59:00PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:47 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> 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. /Bruce