Re: Contributing ARM tests results to KCIDB

["Nikolai Kondrashov" <Nikolai.Kondrashov@redhat.com>]

Hi Cristian,

On 12/2/20 2:01 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:16:10PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> Finally, at this stage we really need a breadth of data coming from
>> different CI system, rather than its depth or precision, so we can understand
>> the problem at hand better and faster. It would do us no good to concentrate
>> on just a few, and solidify the design around them. That would make it more
>> difficult for others to join.
>>
>> You can refine and add more data afterwards.
>>
> 
> Sure, in fact, as of now I still have to ask for some changes in our reporting
> backend, (which generates the original data stored in our DB and then pushed
> to you), so I have to admit the git commit hash are partially faked (since I
> have only a git describe string to start from) and as a consequence they won't
> really be so much useful for comparisons amongst different origins (given
> they don't refer real kernel commits), BUT I thought this NOT to be a
> blocking problem for now, so that I can start pushing data to KCIDB and
> then later on (once I get real full hashes on my side) I'll start pushing the
> real valid ones, does it sounds good ?

Is there any progress towards having the full commit hashes available?

I'm working on aggregating testing data for notification e-mails and I could
use a few samples of data which has both summarized LTP results from Red Hat's
CKI and the detailed LTP results from ARM, under the same revision.

Plus, we're moving ever closer to reaching out to developers with our data,
and it would be good to have the right hashes in your data :)

Nick