From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312592BDF; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:17:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext-too.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3146AE85; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: From: Marco Varlese To: Luca Boccassi , dev@dpdk.org Cc: stable@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 10:17:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1527762399.6997.44.camel@debian.org> References: <1527762399.6997.44.camel@debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Regression tests for stable releases from companies involved in DPDK X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:17:23 -0000 Hi Luca, On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 11:26 +0100, Luca Boccassi 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. Do you have a list of steps (test-cases?) which are carried out for stable regression? I think it is necessary in order to understand the effort involved before committing to it. > > 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. Again, I believe it depends on what needs to be tested (and how) in order to comment on "how much time is required". > > Comments? > Regards, -- Marco V SUSE LINUX GmbH | GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409, Nürnberg