Re: [Xen-devel] automation: Creating a patchwork instance to improve pre-commit build testing

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 24.07.18 at 11:43, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 03:34:51AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 24.07.18 at 11:24, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 03:06:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 23.07.18 at 18:40, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > # How does this impact me?
>> >> > The contribution workflow is *not* impacted by this change, but once up 
>> >> > and 
>> > 
>> >> > running the following will happen once you post a patch or patch series 
>> >> > to 
>> >> > xen-devel:
>> >> > * Patchwork will take patch series from the mailing list and applies it
>> >> > * CI/DC testing is triggered
>> >> > * A test report will be sent as a mail to the patch or the series (aka 
>> >> > the 00 patch of the series)
>> >> > 
>> >> > This does mean though that series which do not build or show other 
>> >> > issues, 
>> >> > will likely not be reviewed until the tests pass. This would lessen the 
>> >> > burden on reviewers, as they will know whether the code submitted 
>> >> > builds on a 
>> >> > wide array of environments. 
>> >> 
>> >> So how are dependencies between series intended to be dealt with? It
>> >> is not uncommon for someone to say "applies only on top of xyz". The
>> >> implication of "will likely not be reviewed until the tests pass" seems
>> >> unsuitable to me in such a case.
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > We have been asking everyone to rebase to staging before posting a new
>> > version for a long time.  It is natural for the bot to assume that
>> > everything should apply on top of staging. That would provide most value
>> > to the community.
>> > 
>> > For special cases like you just mention, we should aim to provide
>> > mechanisms to manually appoint a branch to be tested.
>> 
>> I'm afraid I disagree again: Tools used should not be dictated. I'm
>> using quilt, not git for my work, and hence I don't maintain any
>> branches anywhere.
> 
> Alright.
> 
> First, I don't think I said that only git would be supported.
> Git is the most prevalent VCS nowadays, and most developers use it, so
> it would make sense to support it first.  If you want quilt, we can
> certainly look into that. But I'm afraid if you don't say what you
> specifically need, nothing can be done in that regard.

Well, if you thought of other than git, then I'm afraid I lack
understanding of where such a "branch" should be coming from.
My first and foremost requirement is that, as stated pretty close
to the top, the contribution workflow be *not* impacted. Any
setting up of anything that I'd need to do would be contrary to
that.

> Second, it is up to individual whether they want to use a certain tool
> or not. If you don't want to use this infrastructure for whatever
> reason, that's OK. You're only missing out all the work in the community
> has done, but you should be able to use your own workflow just fine.

Then I maybe misunderstood Lars'es mail: I've gained the
impression that the picking up of patches would be automatic,
i.e. without me telling to system to do so. As it would presumably
send its (failure) mails back to the author, I'd expect to get what
effectively is spam in the described case.

I'm afraid my personal bar for any such automation is pretty
high: There must not ever be any negative effect from such an
addition. Positive effects would of course be very welcome. I
realize this is an unrealistic goal, but it should at least come
close (perhaps after some initial learning phase). But this implies
that at least in theory it is possible to come close in the first
place, which I can't take for given with the information I've been
provided so far.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel