On 17 July 2017 at 10:05, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew. Is
>> that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all the results concatenated into
> I'd like to avoid situations where one of the failure emails is sent
> hours after the others, because it's possible that the patch series
> author has already sent the next (still broken) revision by that time.
> The simplest way to avoid that is by sending just one email.
>> Q2: Some think the full log in the mail body is more than necessary. Is it
>> better or worse if it is a "tail -n 200" of the log in the body and the full
> tail output and a link to the full logs would be nice. Often there is a
> lot of irrelevant output.
Ideally we'd streamline our make process to not produce so much
irrelevant output :-)