On 07/24/2018 12:23 PM, Lars Kurth wrote: > > On 24/07/2018, 11:50, "Julien Grall" <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Lars, > > On 24/07/18 11:33, Lars Kurth wrote: > > > > On 24/07/2018, 11:19, "Wei Liu" <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:04:05AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > I'm afraid my personal bar for any such automation is pretty > > > high: There must not ever be any negative effect from such an > > > addition. Positive effects would of course be very welcome. I > > > realize this is an unrealistic goal, but it should at least come > > > close (perhaps after some initial learning phase). But this > implies > > > that at least in theory it is possible to come close in the first > > > place, which I can't take for given with the information I've > been > > > provided so far. > > > > Then I'm afraid the only suggestion I get for you at the moment is > to > > add a filter to dump those emails to /dev/null -- you already > realised > > that's an unrealistic goal (at least at the beginning). > > > > Wei. > > > > First of all, there should only be mail (aka spam) if there was a > failure. > > This seems a little strange to only send e-mail on failure. How do you > differentiate between the bot has successfully tested that series and > the series is still in queue then? > > Yes, that would be a trade-off to minimize "spam" > > It seems to me there are a number of options we have and thus some decisions > that need to be made. > > 1: Do we trigger a CI cycle for *every* patch?
In a world with infinite resources, yes, because we want to detect broken bisections. My guess is that this would be too resource-intensive for the real world. No matter what, I'd prefer only one email per series; Definitely *don't* want a success email for every patch. > 2: Do we have an opt-in or op-out (e.g. through a tag, a specific CC, etc.) > for patches Opt-out. > 3: Do we report results back to xen-devel or to a separate list > Looking at Linux 0 day, they report failures to a separate list - see > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2018-July/thread.html > They also only seem to report failures > > I am not quite sure what QEMU does. But I can't see any bot messages on their > list archives [snip] > 5: Do we report back on success or only on failure? > See question by Julien I'd start with having the bot respond to 00/NN exactly once, both on success and failure. > 4: Who else, besides the author should get a mail > The patch submitters should definitely get a mail, the question is whether > people on the CC list should also get one I think the bot should reply-to-all. Maybe we can add an opt-out to our website, so that the bot won't reply to you if you don't want it to. > 6: What exactly do we report back > Aka what is in the actual mail A link to the git branch it created (if the patch applied), or a snippet of the rejection message if it didn't. Success / failure, with a link to a page containing the various tests run, so people can see which one failed and investigate the failures. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
