From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC72377A for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:11:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2016 02:11:20 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,494,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1068654657" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2016 02:11:17 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:11:08 -0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by FMSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:11:08 -0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.239]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.239]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:11:06 +0800 From: "Xu, Qian Q" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "ci@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss the opens Thread-Index: AQHSPyS8K5ypYnEuVkiRdjp53TyI1qDZzbig Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:11:05 +0000 Message-ID: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E39258E0D@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E39258B31@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2266496.1mGR1HsFcg@xps13> In-Reply-To: <2266496.1mGR1HsFcg@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss the opens X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:11:23 -0000 See below, THX.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:43 PM To: Xu, Qian Q Cc: ci@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Could we have some agreements on the CI then discuss= the opens Hi, 2016-11-15 09:07, Xu, Qian Q: > Hi, all > I just think that if we can have some agreements on the DPDK CI tasks fir= stly, then discuss about the open list. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. ---Sorry, I mean we have different thoughts on CI, so we can first have som= ething that all agreed on then we can discuss something that we have differ= ent ideas/thoughts.=20 > Possible agreement parts: >=20 > 1. Schedule tool: Jenkins. > LF has the Jenkins as the schedule tool. So I wonder if all agree on this= schedule tool for scheduling build and regression test. The schedule tool must be a personal choice for each test instance. Are you talking about the reference lab? ---I mean the common Jenkins tool for everyone to access; Yes, it may be on= ly valid for the reference lab. It's fine if we use the internal Jenkins to= ol to trigger build or regression test.=20 > 2. Create per patch check(patchcheck and build) by using Jenkins to = trigger > For each patch check, currently we cover the Patchcheck and build. > I noticed Thomas has a separate mail about checkpatch, so does it mean we= can remove patchcheck from the build test? Yes The email checkpatch@dpdk.org is the address of this test instance. If you send a patch directly to this instance, you will receive a private r= eport. It could be a good idea to do the same at Intel so we can test the compilat= ion, especially with ICC, before sending a public patch. ---We have some discussion on ICC within Intel and we are fine to drop ICC = for per patch build, we will keep ICC in our daily test since ICC is not ve= ry popular for the community usage.=20 However, the idea is cool and meantime, Intel also has the similar idea and= implementation, then we may apply it for our internal other checks.=20 And this feature should be documented somewhere. > For build test, Intel can provide Intel IA based per patch build report. = If there is common format, we can follow it. Now that the release 16.11 is done, I'll work on sharing some scripts. > 3. Create daily or weekly functional/build regression test based on = git tree, also using Jenkins to trigger > For the functional/build regression tests, Intel has already sent out the= daily build and functional regression test. If there is common format, we = can also follow it. > Besides Intel, I have also seen the IBM's daily build report. Any others = want to publish the daily/weekly functional regression tests? >=20 > Opens: >=20 > 1. Centralized or distributed performance lab. Is the decision more = dependent on budget or the thoughts? Anyway the per-patch checks will be distributed and aggregated in patchwork= .----Agreed.=20 If we build a reference lab inside Linux Foundation, it will be part of the= distributed CI. So your question should be: Are we going to have a budget for a reference lab?---- Yes. =20 Which tests will be run in this CI instance?----Here I prefer only performa= nce test in the reference lab.=20 > 2. Performance report center. Do you want to publish the performance= report and which is the preferred format? >=20 > 3. The code review tool is still by mailing list. Is it the final de= cision? >=20 > 4. How about the central bug system? Do we want to have one? +1, I commit to have a central bug tracking on dpdk.org during December. ----Good to know.=20 > Proposal: Could we have a CI weekly sync-up meeting for discussion only = on CI? If most people on the mailing list from EU and PRC, then we could fi= nd a more friendly time for PRC people. If interested people are Chinese and French, it would be a good idea to hav= e an IRC meeting. -----What does IRC meeting mean?=20