Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] Regression tests for stable releases from companies involved in DPDK

[Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>]

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