Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes: > On 12.02.2019 18:55, Aaron Conole wrote: >> Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Aaron, ovsrobot doesn't check this patch for some reason. >>> I suspect, it's because "PATCH" and "v8" are glued together. >>> Could you, please, take a look. >> >> It won't. But not for that reason. The patch info says that this is >> patch 1 of 3. But 2/3 and 3/3 haven't been posted. So doing a pull >> from patchwork states: >> >> "total":3,"received_total":1,"received_all":false >> >> Because the patchwork thinks it hasn't received all the patches, it >> defers trying to process the series. In this case, the submitter may >> have intended to post 2 more patches that never hit the list. Maybe we >> can revisit the way the robot works now that it creates a special branch >> for each series that can be modified. > > Thanks for checking. Did you thought about checking patches in a series one > by one ?
We do. But we don't start processing the series until all the patches are received. The reason is for ordering. It's possible that we get 1/3 and 3/3, and if we start processing we will apply 1/3, but then 3/3 won't apply. There could be more logic added to address this, but then we'll need to re-start the whole monitor mechanism and tell it to run all over again - and what happens if the patches *never* arrive... the system will be spinning in loops. > I mean that we definitely want all the patches to not break the > build. For this purpose ovsrobot needs to apply patches one by one and > check. For each patch, we only check that the build doesn't break. The full make-check does take a long time to run, so I pushed it until the end of the series. > This way, I guess, there could be possible to avoid this kind of > misunderstanding with subject prefixes as patch 1/3 should be checked first > anyway. OTOH, this will increase testing time significantly. See above for why it's more complex to do partial series. Maybe there's a better design? Pull requests to https://github.com/orgcandman/pw-ci are always welcome :) >> >> Perhaps this should have been posted without the '1/3' series counter? > > Yes. I guess, Anju wanted this patch to be treated as a single patch. I can manually kick it off if one is ever missing. OTOH, since you've already noted lots of problems, maybe it's best that Anju submit a v9 with the correct metadata. :) _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
