DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] Regression tests for stable releases from companies involved in DPDK
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 10:57:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1527847060.6997.67.camel@debian.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAATJJ0KJ8g93JGh1F4XUBryxhwKtDmWM=L_sY_9rHtvESZ+Sbw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 06:38 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > At this morning's release meeting (minutes coming soon from John),
> > we
> > briefly discussed the state of the regression testing for stable
> > releases and agreed we need to formalise the process.
> > 
> > At the moment we have a firm commitment from Intel and Mellanox to
> > test
> > all stable branches (and if I heard correctly from NXP as well?
> > Please
> > confirm!). AT&T committed to run regressions on the 16.11 branch.
> > 
> > Here's what we need in order to improve the quality of the stable
> > releases process:
> > 
> > 1) More commitments to help from other companies involved in the
> > DPDK
> > community. At the cost of re-stating the obvious, improving the
> > quality
> > of stable releases is for everyone's benefit, as a lot of customers
> > and
> > projects rely on the stable or LTS releases for their production
> > environments.
> > 
> > 2) A formalised deadline - the current proposal is 10 days from the
> > "xx.yy patches review and test" email, which was just sent for
> > 16.11.
> > For the involved companies, please let us know if 10 days is
> > enough. In
> > terms of scheduling, this period will always start within a week
> > from
> > the mainline final release. Again, the signal is the "xx.yy patches
> > review and test" appearing in the inbox, which will detail the
> > deadline.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hi Luca,
> I discussed with Thomas about it.
> I don't know how much extra effort for the stable maintainers it
> would be,
> but I wonder if there could be a XX.YY.z-rc tarball.
> That would be
> a) a more clear sign what people are used to test
> b) easier to integrate as I assume quite a bunch of tests will
> usually
> start rebasing on tarballs instead of directly from git.
> 
> If you think everyone can derive from git easily I'm fine, I just
> wondered
> if a proper -rc tarball might be more comfortable for the testing
> entities.
> 
> cu
> Christian

I think that's a good idea, and something we can consider for the next
release cycle - the tools to push rc to mainline should work just the
same for the stable repo.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-01  9:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-31 10:26 [dpdk-dev] " Luca Boccassi
2018-06-01  4:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Christian Ehrhardt
2018-06-01  9:57   ` Luca Boccassi [this message]
2018-06-01  8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] " Marco Varlese
2018-06-01  9:56   ` Luca Boccassi
2018-06-01 11:04     ` Marco Varlese
2018-06-04  5:24 ` Shreyansh Jain
2018-06-04  8:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Luca Boccassi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1527847060.6997.67.camel@debian.org \
    --to=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).