All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
To: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn>,
	 Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>,
	ci@dpdk.org,  dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:53:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7tzfuu6rcm.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJvnSUD0+W16wRATb8ZGHJu3Rs_GZ54J3+skHW_=owBb03RyUw@mail.gmail.com> (Patrick Robb's message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:30:13 -0400")

Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:37 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>
>>
>> One more thing I want to confirm is whether we should apply the patch
>> onto the branch commit which existed at the time when that patch was
>> submitted or onto the latest tip of branch if users request doing
>> rebase. Users probably request a recheck with `rebase` when the CI lab
>> chose a wrong branch onto which apply the patch. I worry we may
>> encounter conflicts when apply the patch onto the latest commit of the
>> target branch if that branch is just updated before the request.
>>
>>
>
> That's a good edge case to think about...  but I also think if the
> patch no longer applies cleanly on tip of intended branch, then we
> would be correct to report an apply failure there. And then the
> submitter should refactor their patch so it applies, and submit again.

+1

> So I think the process is like
>
> A) If retest is requested without rebase key, then retest "original"
> dpdk artifact (either by re-using the existing tarball (unh lab) or
> tracking the commit from submit time and re-applying onto dpdk at that
> commit (loongson)).
>
> B) If rebase key is included, apply to tip of the indicated branch.
> If, because the branch has changed, the patch no longer applies, then
> we can report an apply failure. Then, submitter has to refactor their
> patch and resubmit.

That makes sense to me.

> In either case, report the new results with an updated test result in
> the email (i.e. report "_Testing PASS RETEST #1" instead of "_Testing
> PASS" in the email body).

Ack - makes sense here too.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-19 17:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-20 15:21 Email based retest request process: proposal for new pull/re-apply feature Patrick Robb
2024-02-20 18:12 ` Aaron Conole
2024-02-20 18:24   ` Patrick Robb
2024-03-01 14:36     ` zhoumin
2024-03-04 15:21       ` Aaron Conole
2024-03-07 17:06         ` Adam Hassick
2024-03-18 15:59           ` Patrick Robb
2024-03-19  8:36             ` zhoumin
2024-03-19 17:30               ` Patrick Robb
2024-03-19 17:53                 ` Aaron Conole [this message]
2024-03-20  1:35                 ` zhoumin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f7tzfuu6rcm.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=aconole@redhat.com \
    --cc=ahassick@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=ci@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=probb@iol.unh.edu \
    --cc=zhoumin@loongson.cn \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.