From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <ci-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15798A00E6 for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCF41BC02; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:45:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com (mail-ot1-f67.google.com [209.85.210.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088C11BC00 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:45:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id e5so5067596otk.12 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ssuxtXJnhXd9THIumHrI4rogpGesunz5TI4p88aJPjE=; b=Nu3H7hJOLE61huPM8/Lov7b3Df/6ebRPYzKSq5z1anZ1iGMy36u5ZL3meRrTIc95J9 rjSX8ktSsD2OPvumqKXn6VvDCAyauvstL33m71b5ZwOh0WV2k2pr+mEV4821YDVJq1L1 +dbfGUviU4SyM3reBpS/z42oouTLdJotyR+c8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ssuxtXJnhXd9THIumHrI4rogpGesunz5TI4p88aJPjE=; b=ZH1zV9dlUjNOnslM9v2tQP8xjF6eJBKkE7TDtwgHyc8hJc4wA9zlW6YiXItXgPK3CN c4udO/E9o5ob2AKQzF8AVUnEVfmnHJGBiqVlgHkmC21MXNc+Mjj2GsJuJJTDH2xRM01b k0o+vDMNlwckTXyyzYr7uESlerrJeDqXtleotpdu2XdYwFbNFMAfSOdfp+DvVaB4O8QJ DTZV4CwTunk6eBxGAskLebtLv0TKElFBCpj/zL4F6DRQAXk7KLMML+gf0YqJRXzwKULO VfJRgaoyKIGU56R0v3EMLMy/9ge54eJFkH1q3MEX/5xIWwyzhOOoBSzFRuuJSJbNrK2+ dbHg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXdoHkCrhF5FlmA+c39YHnUpqSXNmsDohVhZ+gfw9curpPrqJIh 1gEbNWYu9E/AoozzNV8EubqhwU7ILg8ZAyqiji9zbA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJ8A1soAcPFAX1qyZPIeWusUIvWK3uBQ1p02lb5tsKix5fyqxr0NwSUhU4UaNDX7U58/ndP+gVn4EoL372X40= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5784:: with SMTP id q4mr3428826oth.277.1555703141190; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190216160206.11957-1-alialnu@mellanox.com> <1669577.NWkuDTEeDI@xps> <CA+xUZB438Op8xex6VZSSukrhWfX24wR7SErwVoehGF1fLw0yRQ@mail.gmail.com> <2581335.NoBSEKiLG5@xps> In-Reply-To: <2581335.NoBSEKiLG5@xps> From: Jeremy Plsek <jplsek@iol.unh.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:45:04 -0400 Message-ID: <CA+xUZB6MpMwRJUOFe3sryMC+=a4Dh62TknOZPWemJfymMBCHEw@mail.gmail.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: Ali Alnubani <alialnu@mellanox.com>, "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "ci@dpdk.org" <ci@dpdk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [PATCH v4] add script to decide best tree match for patches X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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 Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 3:41 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 19/04/2019 20:06, Jeremy Plsek: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:55 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > 19/04/2019 19:33, Jeremy Plsek: > > > > I thinks so. Only more patchsets will tell, but that could be improved > > > > after the fact. So I think it's fine to merge it in. > > > > > > > > At first glance, the only part that I don't think is implemented is > > > > mentioned here: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166#c35 > > > > > We must match the common prefix of the git trees. > > > > > Examples: > > > > > dpdk-next-net-intel + dpdk = dpdk > > > > > dpdk-next-net-intel + dpdk-next-net-mlx = dpdk-next-net > > > > Since some of the patches are being set to dpdk-next-net-mlx instead > > > > of dpdk-next-net. But I'm fine with how it is right now and wouldn't > > > > mind it getting changed to this later on. > > > > > > It is supposed to be fixed. > > > Please could you give an example of a misbehaviour? > > > > The most recent example is series 4380. For me, that returned dpdk-next-net-mlx. > > The series 4380 is mlx only, so it fine to match dpdk-next-net-mlx. > Why do you expect something else? > Ok, I guess I was misunderstanding the comment. I thought that anything under dpdk-next-net-* would just be lumped into dpdk-next-net. The scripts are good to go then. -- Jeremy Plsek UNH InterOperability Laboratory