From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id EE4A9E009F4; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:47:12 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high * trust * [192.55.52.88 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BCBE009EA for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2017 14:47:07 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,250,1477983600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="1114692657" Received: from jalamego-mobl2.zpn.intel.com (HELO [10.219.5.142]) ([10.219.5.142]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2017 14:47:07 -0800 To: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" References: <70d81353-d5f9-6d36-ed40-7b5eedf1ad26@linux.intel.com> From: Jose Lamego Message-ID: <7e48c4f5-78cd-244b-e039-fd65397b9f17@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:47:11 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Patchwork and incoming patch testing X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:47:13 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 33928 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u1dNAhSQq1V42tTtddDEqLxWaLtAIH0PM" --u1dNAhSQq1V42tTtddDEqLxWaLtAIH0PM Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="63ID2MugwJ8AIDGddkpEa0nk6rodkRE6L"; protected-headers="v1" From: Jose Lamego To: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Message-ID: <7e48c4f5-78cd-244b-e039-fd65397b9f17@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [yocto] [Openembedded-architecture] Patchwork and incoming patch testing References: <70d81353-d5f9-6d36-ed40-7b5eedf1ad26@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: --63ID2MugwJ8AIDGddkpEa0nk6rodkRE6L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was replying to the wrong mailing list. Sorry for the spam. :( On 01/18/2017 04:40 PM, Jose Lamego wrote: >=20 > On 01/18/2017 08:52 AM, Leonardo Sandoval wrote: >> + Jose Lamego >> >> >> Jose is doing recent work on the patchwork UI, perhaps there are alrea= dy >> bugs for the items you are asking. >> >> >> On 01/18/2017 02:40 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote: >>> This looks great, thanks. >>> >>> On 17 January 2017 at 20:05, Paul Eggleton >>> = > >>> wrote: >>> >>> In any event we are now finally in the >>> position where our patchwork instance can be relied upon to >>> collect emails, >>> and the UI is much improved. This should give us a bit more >>> visibility into >>> where patches are at in the process, although we are still workin= g >>> on a few >>> places where patch series status needs to be updated (e.g. when a= >>> patch goes >>> into testing). >>> >>> >>> What's the plan for these status updates -- is the idea that you go t= o >>> patchwork UI to see the state of a specific patch set? >>> Or maybe a reply to either patch sender or even the ML? >>> There is a request to enable email notifications to submitter for patch status changes in the future: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D7684 The idea is that users should have the option to use what they prefer: either the email notifications, or the patchwork web interface. >=20 >>> On top of patchwork we have built a simple smoke-testing framewor= k >>> called >>> "patchtest" [5] along with a suite of corresponding tests for OE >>> [6]. These >>> tests are fairly simplistic at this point but check the basics >>> such as whether >>> a patch has been properly signed off, etc. We should soon start >>> seeing replies >>> sent to the mailing list and to submitters with results if there >>> are any >>> failures, saving us from noticing and pointing out some of the >>> more obvious >>> classes of mistakes. >>> >>> >>> Is there a reason for patchwork only showing "success" or "failure" >>> in the web ui, instead of linking to test results at least in in the >>> failure case? >> >> Jussi, that is a good idea. Right now we need to click into the series= , >> then into the patches and then one can see the patch test results, >> obviously, not the best way. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Jussi >>> --=20 Jose Lamego | OTC Embedded Platforms & Tools | GDC --63ID2MugwJ8AIDGddkpEa0nk6rodkRE6L-- --u1dNAhSQq1V42tTtddDEqLxWaLtAIH0PM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYf/BvAAoJEFJAtowlSEbnd5MH/2er9q+5Q/JujTR4sCh3Uh1m 8XdWoD7XQme6Mlez7GAL7odHdpH3Ak0zCwTHO/TlPihLIo0VqafWmMrHbUJJ9jRa qFQx1D4o71835g1YDjsnC4Vg+L4jtmCvBfR97YPT/1HD3HIAs1hOSP1rVGZ1nyKq 4O1pjhTHMuxxiRuzAo1V1PWJse3n22w+r39+IBaJjg8AtQr8qCrI3G7xuwwfmX8c Q+Xmuz4l9+yq4pdxfPXyamhSiCNnfMu3zWhHBHnAeHYT8cHVQkMEjxhZx7+1n1uq J1MWfjeCHs8QdjsQQjhQ/nxeOKDmQzhwJoIBa2gweQdnV6ObmjCH2ctKOAh10Zk= =Wav5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --u1dNAhSQq1V42tTtddDEqLxWaLtAIH0PM--