From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DE14342E; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76CC40289; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-oo1-f50.google.com (mail-oo1-f50.google.com [209.85.161.50]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8084027F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:59:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oo1-f50.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5a47cecb98bso1844823eaf.0 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:59:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1710777589; x=1711382389; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=OElNLQyzdttKqs8Oc5hlYoqBff/9WXpnay7Hg2iyK50=; b=HfCfqjg2wc1TQ04IfMZ4X4R4yNlzVhDha0p5g2WUpS9nRrGHvRKTrz6+mPgPvZh6Fb 7bJ70oh7HmOAGUC1XepoRx3COXYYeNLzXoNpuMk5/zClY8oP9InJP9MIyQlGEtJnAPrS qnVcyzwGS0PiYH4yK/Mf6p/A9KZRXAF54ezzc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710777589; x=1711382389; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OElNLQyzdttKqs8Oc5hlYoqBff/9WXpnay7Hg2iyK50=; b=IDhuPKXO082jMUJDdqGub8m7qAurFaxHGh3PJzjkhe4FYed0OkAgD41rIB6waqFY2z qySC5+vhTLPL3WQ5JvQaq2Ha+y8L//pmkD85CL+TzSwANbxV+/aibLrUlDZL/tklIcEX O9mAWjtJYZ2XnysEx66bbA/+6CfApGxwblP9NoxAh95OjTRfC1PhVmV0+9AsVbW66lWV TijLO+JOGKeXoJDagqjykD39gK5bJHMdqoE+NNdETjy7wMO9y2vJX0/XszjBXeY4miO1 87TUD22FFhtjHQ3cfkcd74QMCmRL8GYnHRCOliVITeNUBYy0X4pwgyJiXq4P9x5LOrii 31QQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWFfLLFVqoZOkIm2dreRp6DgD5FMfcuHegiDFBjsmn0/T/0nVi/BTGUtUxjTF2Cgxqwb176V43GnzR8gVA= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzw8eCkAVqBj2GgyK9mOnsD6Hgye/fAG+rvde4dWf6Kt3XZBIU5 9dcy1DfYIIm3El8zTYJr/ae+9NygzljvtqKsFMfLUn7uuaxjwuhV56l+S2ZKlIcu49Obag+OQiZ cpqhtk0/nQpKDFhJ1JGsas/sWmIYuaZpWH4SpOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH7SKvSoU7lFYBYMl8VbMFJCCryCBu4iFSBQEr04x29kAC+3Af1ig9GLRgsymiobzhfgVdym2dMqJDUA14vOQw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6820:98d:b0:5a4:8782:7f8b with SMTP id cg13-20020a056820098d00b005a487827f8bmr69330oob.1.1710777589525; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:59:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <CAJvnSUBp7gZfarfWN05-Td=QPSzNtQWztdEY820gGPm98K4QAA@mail.gmail.com> <f7t4je3dmya.fsf@redhat.com> <CAJvnSUAsxwCZTd_vZgfpGFmiLqsG6icQ1a=Q62F+S7qtkBtRRQ@mail.gmail.com> <2640cd5b-ea3d-cd74-d5c0-eb776e880b13@loongson.cn> <f7tbk7uc99q.fsf@redhat.com> <CAC-YWqj_uo1+YLk-hUTPqn92DHHyS-dSiQDT-QFf_uZGwqsoUg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAC-YWqj_uo1+YLk-hUTPqn92DHHyS-dSiQDT-QFf_uZGwqsoUg@mail.gmail.com> From: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:59:38 -0400 Message-ID: <CAJvnSUCENMhj6b-C_xF4AUAae30kjpQ4wYBdPjWR191_jtcopg@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature To: Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>, ci@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:06=E2=80=AFPM Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>= wrote: > > > I'm not opposed to having the contexts be a key-value pair argument > like the others, however that does break backwards compatibility with > our existing syntax. If we don't care very much about backwards > compatibility, then we could make this change. > > Instead of having a boolean and a string parameter for whether to > rebase and the branch to rebase on, we could have a single argument > specifying a branch. Then, labs rebase on the given branch and then > rerun all tests if the "rebase=3D<branch>" argument is present. This > would look like: > > Recheck-request: rebase=3Dmain, iol-sample-apps-testing, > iol-unit-amd64-testing, iol-broadcom-Performance I agree with this approach because it preserves backward compatibility, while still providing us with all the functionality we need. We will also be able to accept key value arguments in the future if further feature requests come in which require it. > I don't think the context should be required if the request includes > the rebase argument, because we do not want to mix valid and invalid > test results as Aaron said. > This would be a valid format if contexts are optional: > > Recheck-request: rebase=3Dmain Okay, I agree that contexts should not be considered by labs when we use rebase - but of course we will still store the contexts (if they are submitted) alongside the key value args. In the future there may be an application for this. Zhoumin, does this sound acceptable, or do you think there are any flaws? If it works, we will implement the updates and try to upstream this week. Thanks!