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

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:04:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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.

Well even CVS has the concept of branch. Mercurial also has branch (but
not the same as git branch). But I admit I was mostly thinking about git
branches. It would be strange for me to not think about git as first
approximation because Xen uses git as the official VCS.

Anyway, I don't see much point in arguing this more. I can only say this
again: if you want other tools, this can be done in principle, but at
the very least you need to provide insight on your workflow, and the
community will see about what to do.

> 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.
> 

If you don't use it, you don't need to set up anything (other than a
filter?), you won't be impacted. Does this make sense?

> > 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.

Then I'm afraid the only suggestion I get for you at the moment is to
add a filter to dump those emails to /dev/null -- you already realised
that's an unrealistic goal (at least at the beginning).

Wei.

> 
> Jan
> 
> 

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