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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D40C61DA7 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pLO0n-0002uU-Rs; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 07:39:21 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pLO0m-0002uH-83 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 07:39:20 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pLO0k-0008KP-99 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 07:39:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674823156; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9FA60KoN+1cSd2WfY65+hdlQb6QW4/5iuW6JTxIH6CI=; b=Z8413bH1DtnOAE7bIabjeoJSFOptMzKrh4fRZpwzYpIV58ucdaTGQXEW8QS+C/+YhQRRQI BFMcOfRUIK8VwC3+X8Qxe98HwDcyM82DX1wVNX5Ta/qtNmTHprJoY7Y8Bjeyk32NQLvMyP ieiiY0VIUi+EfU0prVZ2xO7I92G74qo= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-190-fqcoqY2wMA2XvFaWpzvzdA-1; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 07:39:10 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fqcoqY2wMA2XvFaWpzvzdA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FF9587A9E4; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.39.195.39]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4272166B26; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 12:39:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 13:39:08 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , QEMU Developers , Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , Richard Henderson , John Snow , "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: no more pullreq processing til February Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Am 26.01.2023 um 15:28 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 14:25, Stefan Hajnoczi 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