From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2E1C433E1 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62C5F20771 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="BGzB+jWC" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 62C5F20771 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:52092 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyDhX-0001ns-MX for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:18:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyDfj-0008BG-TV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:16:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]:50286) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyDfi-0007mu-0Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:16:31 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id c80so1740901wme.0 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:16:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SHNuuFUaqJOJ6GUIQRzb1wT4TZjwWxuIbxVipbbyLF4=; b=BGzB+jWCwthoXX7HZzcKlJgmO2qXTnsVfg76gPRMEncdXrbLT5kMVHXHJ0zLMCcleE BQILP1xMmwQbkTktrVi7hox2w6rWrjeqlInNKwuhPCoGoFFzMd6FAS6CfIjY3dWrccY0 cBgknB6RXjKH6tYJtGZFWoe7xdLlF37Kg828RD0bqFCFlxwtP+Ju4IKCkk8DuLA4bxva 7g2Ln78KkQNjATg0FbTdv2+qxgg35qbD5fOTI7l1YdQCQ7w5x/MAI8CWNVsq76DVq2WV pfmSB3npTaM1oOXqP95FpaduiKGdyH1YVr8f+M5RMpnW2bVjGWpIicGFxncE21FwLDxL 5JhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SHNuuFUaqJOJ6GUIQRzb1wT4TZjwWxuIbxVipbbyLF4=; b=Leyu9Y/9pAgpqAiFMGAAF7jasS/B9QB6W9Y4w4ob39uyp5SntXfC7bAEPZKabn1xOQ sYfK/G67unXVrJM/XUj4LovJBUyRWz9XC69XtNB4BCSh/36uo2wUv0wO7kzsUcp6X5a2 uFw8EV8hk59bVnkNhqYVcAf+JVAWBF9KNPTv4CUi50+K16uxfiOrh4TKOLDxLthDuYpV qtC/67czinewzDfezWS/IQtiHG603A62EG38RbVHugBUBAfSYU3WmKOA/irBT8W8fPyt ccy1zZXY1X/N5yPvM3pm0i1GOiQLvepI0lrxER45qY5gmfrpk5BMwg8b7gfNY9pybRgi OnvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KraEQHReOplYSRnjWHdTGWD6wFDPTB4ip5hMSAB10sHSwFiRn KSa5Kzvx4uaHhbXbEr0eHBEQjA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyoEPAeV1AVB8eFgsWI3utakwKCuEbRt3IX6ddgE+jvJETaLaVJbWpEsTz03VqEbwWp9qvcQg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:5f41:: with SMTP id t62mr8237486wmb.53.1595420188058; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen.linaroharston ([51.148.130.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n16sm6872160wmc.40.2020.07.22.05.16.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 05:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zen.linaroharston (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E0D1FF7E; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:16:25 +0100 (BST) References: <20200722093621.GA4838@linux.fritz.box> User-agent: mu4e 1.5.5; emacs 28.0.50 From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: please try to avoid sending pullreqs late on release-candidate day In-reply-to: <20200722093621.GA4838@linux.fritz.box> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:16:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87r1t3u4me.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::332; envelope-from=alex.bennee@linaro.org; helo=mail-wm1-x332.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , Jason Wang , Gerd Hoffmann , Markus Armbruster Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Kevin Wolf writes: > Am 21.07.2020 um 17:56 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: >> It is not helpful if everybody sends their pullrequests late >> on the Tuesday afternoon, as there just isn't enough time in the >> day to merge test and apply them all before I have to cut the tag. >> Please, if you can, try to send pullrequests earlier, eg Monday. > > > So given that we _will_ have some late patches, what can we do to > improve the situation? > > Maybe I could send the pull request before testing it to save some time. > Your tests will take a while anyway, so if my own testing fails (e.g. > for the parts of iotests that you don't test), I would still have time > to NACK my own pull request. This wouldn't buy us more than an hour at > most and could lead to wasted testing effort on your side (which is > exactly the resource we want to save). > > Can you test multiple pull requests at once? The Tuesday ones tend to be > small (between 1 and 3 patches was what I saw yesterday), so they should > be much less likely to fail than large pull requests. If you test two > pull requests together and it fails so you have to retest one of them in > isolation, you still haven't really lost time compared to testing both > individually. And if it succeeds, you cut the testing time in half. I've taken to just stacking up patches from my multiple trees to avoid sending more than one PR a week. Of course sometimes the stack grows a bit too tall and becomes unwieldy :-/ > > Kevin --=20 Alex Benn=C3=A9e