Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-11-28 10:16:17) > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-11-28 10:08:56) > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-11-28 08:15:13) > > >> On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 16:54 +0200, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > > >> > Hey all, > > >> > > > >> > For some time already CI sends out 1-2 mails per series per (re)run, > > >> > i.e. BAT > > >> > results and "full IGT" results (if BAT has not failed). > > >> > > > >> > Recently we have added 32bit build check, and if that fails it sends > > >> > out > > >> > additional mail In-Reply-To the series. > > >> > > > >> > I am working on adding some static checks to the CI (spare and > > >> > checkpatch at the > > >> > moment, more may come in the future), which may generate even more > > >> > commotion on > > >> > the mailing list. > > >> > > > >> > How much of CI noise is too much and how you would like to have the > > >> > results > > >> > grouped? > > >> > > > >> > Couple of options to start the discussion: > > >> > > > >> > 1. Group all static checks (and the 32bit build?) into one mail: > > >> > - just one additional mail, > > >> > - may be hard to read in case of catastrophic failure, > > >> > - we can send it only when something actually fails. > > >> > > > >> > 2. Send out the results as a part of BAT results: > > >> > - even less noise than (1), > > >> > - BAT results already feel cluttered, this may decrease > > >> > readability. > > >> > > > >> > 3. Have each check as a separate mail, but send it only if the check > > >> > fails: > > >> > - noisy: may result in many mails, depending how many checks fail, > > >> > - easier to read and easier to follow on patchwork. > > >> > > >> The best user experience I could think of; > > >> > > >> 1. If all CI checks succeed, delay and only send one mail with all the > > >> results. This would indicate it's good to merge, go do it. > > >> 2. When a CI checks fail, immediately send that out so the developer > > >> gets to work on the fix. > > >> > > >> Above requires that all the checks complete rather quickly and a trust > > >> is gained to the system so that the absence of e-mail always means the > > >> series is doing good, not that the system is clogged in some way :) > > > > > > Or just 2. The first being the compilation report; saying we > > > have received your patch and it compiles fine, it will be queued to the > > > farm currently in slot N (or it doesn't even compile!). The second being > > > the success or failure of the CI run. > > > > > > From the user pov, we can't do anything until the CI report so > > > intermediate emails saying congrats are just fluff. Useful simply to > > > know the patch hasn't fall out of the system, but not supplying any > > > actionable information. > > > > BAT was meant to be that mail, with the added benefit that if a series > > fails the basic sanity check you can ignore it for review and > > everything. Still not quite there yet (and the recently undone change > > of ratelimiting didn't help). > > The compile check should take 30s(?) on the build host with all the > distcc/ccache. It's going to be rare to develop a long queue and > significant latency; whereas one developer can flood the system with 5 > different series they happen to have queued, repeat for everyone getting > to work in the morning.
One thing I forgot to mention, is that trybot has a large latency for that single BAT success email. Having a quick "patch received; compiles" response from the system would give a nice bit of reassurance. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
