From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@gmail.com>,
"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
"John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: no more pullreq processing til February
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 13:39:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9PF7C29TNSuvz9o@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_CJ3VjHx1GhjBJjCY=+twBZM3UnR_g0sZLJhvVLcY=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Am 26.01.2023 um 15:28 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 14:25, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Are you batching pull requests? I used that approach last release
> > cycle. CI takes so long to run that I didn't want to run it for every
> > pull request. Batching worked well overall.
>
> No, I just do one test per pullreq. IME the CI is flaky
> enough that I don't really want to batch it up, and it
> isn't so slow that I build up a backlog of unprocessed
> requests.
But obviously so slow that we've run out of minutes. It would be good if
this didn't happen every month in the future.
If it worked well enough for Stefan, I think it would be worth trying to
batch some pull requests going forward. What is the downside of it? If
CI fails and flaky tests seem to be at fault, I assume you just re-run
the job, no matter whether it tests a single pull request or two or
three of them?
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-27 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-26 13:22 no more pullreq processing til February Peter Maydell
2023-01-26 13:52 ` Eldon Stegall
2023-01-26 14:13 ` Alex Bennée
2023-01-26 14:27 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-26 14:38 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 18:41 ` Eldon Stegall
2023-01-27 9:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:18 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:30 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-27 8:50 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2023-01-26 13:57 ` Alex Bennée
2023-01-26 14:07 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2023-01-26 14:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:35 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:41 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-26 18:17 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-26 20:49 ` Alex Bennée
2023-01-26 14:25 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-01-26 14:28 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-27 7:36 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-27 12:39 ` Kevin Wolf [this message]
2023-01-27 12:47 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-27 13:11 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-27 13:12 ` Peter Maydell
2023-02-01 16:18 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-27 9:30 ` Markus Armbruster
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=Y9PF7C29TNSuvz9o@redhat.com \
--to=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=stefanha@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).