From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Boccassi Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] Regression tests for stable releases from companies involved in DPDK Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 10:57:40 +0100 Message-ID: <1527847060.6997.67.camel@debian.org> References: <1527762399.6997.44.camel@debian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev , stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon To: Christian Ehrhardt Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, 2018-06-01 at 06:38 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Luca Boccassi > wrote: >=20 > > Hello all, > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > Here's what we need in order to improve the quality of the stable > > releases process: > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > Hi Luca, > I discussed with Thomas about it. > I don't know how much extra effort for the stable maintainers it > would be, > but I wonder if there could be a XX.YY.z-rc tarball. > That would be > a) a more clear sign what people are used to test > b) easier to integrate as I assume quite a bunch of tests will > usually > start rebasing on tarballs instead of directly from git. >=20 > If you think everyone can derive from git easily I'm fine, I just > wondered > if a proper -rc tarball might be more comfortable for the testing > entities. >=20 > cu > Christian I think that's a good idea, and something we can consider for the next release cycle - the tools to push rc to mainline should work just the same for the stable repo. --=20 Kind regards, Luca Boccassi