From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
users@linux.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Github PR bot questions
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:27:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <62abb1a1c1e43e9e0c60b9dec7446328949cf2d1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqKLoMkXSF6aYHhO-MPCmFiRBS-vozuEPhsVnDa_fbjh7g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 4:33 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 15:11 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > - subsystem maintainers can configure whatever CI pre-checks
> > > > they want before the series is sent to them for review (and we
> > > > can work on a library of Github actions, so nobody needs to
> > > > reimplement checkpatch.pl multiple times)
> > >
> > > What about all the patches that don't come from the GH PR? Those
> > > need CI pre-checks too. We're going to implement CI twice? The
> > > biggest issue I have on CI checks is applying patches. My
> > > algorithm is apply to my current base (last rc1 typically) or
> > > give up. I'm sure it could be a lot smarter trying several
> > > branches or looking at base-commit (not consistently used) or the
> > > git diff treeish hashes. What I'd really like is some bot or
> > > script that's applying series and publishing git branches with a
> > > messageid to git branch tool. 0-day is doing this now. Basically,
> > > the opposite direction as others have mentioned.
> >
> > I've got to say my experience with Github CIs has been pretty
> > unpleasant. Pretty much every project I've ever pushed to has had
> > at least one commit reject because of a bug in the CI rather than
> > the commit which they usually dump on the submitter to fix. As an
> > endless devops make work project, I'm sure they're fine, but what
> > we have now with 0-day is pretty much good enough for most kernel
> > work, plus if it goes wrong we can ignore it and somebody else
> > fixes it ...
>
> It's the making a git branch somewhere that I'm interested in, not
> the Github part of it. If someone wants to tie GH CI to that and send
> out replies to patches, then fine. We can use them if useful or
> ignore if not.
>
> 0-day is a bit unpredictable in terms of response time. I often only
> get reports after things land in linux-next which is a bit late IMO.
> What is run and the priorities are all opaque.
You can specifically ask it (or rather it's handlers) to send you or
the mailing list a success report when the tests you've requested have
run. I think they also respond to triggers (please test this branch
now).
I suspect what we could all do with is a nice how 0-day can work for
you presentation from its handlers so all of us know all of the tricks.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-17 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-16 17:18 RFC: Github PR bot questions Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-16 17:24 ` Drew DeVault
2021-06-16 17:47 ` Johannes Berg
2021-06-16 17:55 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-16 18:13 ` Miguel Ojeda
2021-06-17 17:07 ` Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <CAJhbpm_BgbSx581HU0mTCkcE28n_hRx=tv74az_mE2VBmPtrVA@mail.gmail.com>
2021-06-16 18:05 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-16 18:11 ` Miguel Ojeda
2021-06-16 18:22 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-16 18:38 ` Miguel Ojeda
2021-06-16 20:10 ` Willy Tarreau
2021-06-17 15:11 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-17 15:25 ` Willy Tarreau
2021-06-16 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-17 15:09 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-16 21:11 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-16 21:18 ` Stefano Stabellini
2021-06-16 21:59 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-16 22:33 ` James Bottomley
2021-06-17 14:18 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-17 14:27 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2021-06-17 6:52 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-06-17 8:20 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2021-06-17 8:55 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-06-17 9:33 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2021-06-17 9:52 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-06-17 14:33 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-17 15:24 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2021-06-17 15:38 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-17 15:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-17 14:02 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-17 14:47 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-17 15:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-06-17 15:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-17 15:53 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-06-17 17:15 ` Rob Herring
2021-06-17 6:37 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2021-06-17 7:30 ` Greg KH
2021-06-17 14:59 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-17 8:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-17 8:33 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-06-17 9:52 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2021-06-17 10:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-17 14:57 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-06-17 15:16 ` Mark Brown
2021-06-17 15:24 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-06-17 16:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-06-17 18:43 ` Miguel Ojeda
2021-06-17 15:31 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-06-17 17:06 ` Stefano Stabellini
2021-06-17 22:35 ` Jiri Kosina
2021-06-17 14:23 ` Miguel Ojeda
2021-06-17 20:42 ` Brendan Higgins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=62abb1a1c1e43e9e0c60b9dec7446328949cf2d1.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=konstantin@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=users@linux.kernel.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.