On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:14:00PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:09:55PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 26.04.2018 15:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > (Starting a new thread, for more visibility) > > > > > > (This was: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test > > > devices with all machines, not only with "none") > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:54:43PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > [...] > > >> I don't mind having make check SPEED=slow run more extensive tests. > > >> Assuming we actually run them at least once in a while, which seems > > >> doubtful. > > > > > > We probably don't do that, but we really must be running a more > > > extensive (and slower) test set at least once before every > > > release. > > > > > > Maybe some people are running SPEED=slow tests, or even more > > > extensive test suites like avocado-vt once in a while, but we > > > need to know who is running them, and when. > > > > At least I am running "make check SPEED=slow" manually from time to > > time, especially when we enter the hard freeze period. > > Hmm, we could get this done by travis. It has the concept of "cron jobs" > for scheduling builds separately from pushes. > > So we could keep the current travis jobs unchanged, but then add an > use of SPEED=slow when TRAVIS_EVENT_TYPE == "cron" in the travis.yml, > so we can get SPEED=slow run once a day. Just have to be careful which > jobs we make slow so we don't hit the 50 minute timeout.
I expect SPEED=slow tests to eventually take longer than 50 minutes, but we can try this and see what happens. -- Eduardo
