From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: "QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
"Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>, "John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: no more pullreq processing til February
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 08:36:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8103684-f07f-45fc-b51d-f39ecff8016e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_CJ3VjHx1GhjBJjCY=+twBZM3UnR_g0sZLJhvVLcY=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 26/01/2023 15.28, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 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.
Just an idea: Maybe you could at least batch up the PRs from the people who
have their repo on gitlab.com and already use the gitlab CI? ... in those
cases you can be pretty sure that at least a huge part should pass the CI.
(and if you're worried about the non-x86 hosts, you could ask the
maintainers to supply an URL to Travis builds, too - we still have the
possibility to test s390x, ppc64le and aarch64 there)
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-27 7:37 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 [this message]
2023-01-27 12:39 ` Kevin Wolf
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=f8103684-f07f-45fc-b51d-f39ecff8016e@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@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).