| Message ID | 20220112065019.58924-2-jsoref@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | David Marchand |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ci: restrict concurrency | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ci/intel-Testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/Intel-compilation | success | Compilation OK |
| ci/iol-abi-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-x86_64-unit-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-x86_64-compile-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-aarch64-unit-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-intel-Functional | success | Functional Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-intel-Performance | success | Performance Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-broadcom-Functional | success | Functional Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-mellanox-Performance | success | Performance Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-aarch64-compile-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-broadcom-Performance | success | Performance Testing PASS |
| ci/github-robot: build | success | github build: passed |
| ci/checkpatch | warning | coding style issues |
Hi, The explanation should be in the patch, not the cover letter. Actually, you don't need a cover letter for a single patch. Copying it here: " dpdk is fairly expensive to build in GitHub. It's helpful to abandon old builds as soon as there's a new build waiting instead of wasting resources on the previous round. " 12/01/2022 07:50, Josh Soref: > Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> > --- > + concurrency: > + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} > + cancel-in-progress: true The goal of the CI is to catch any issue in a submitted patch. Is your change cancelling a test of a patch when another one is submitted?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:42 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > Hi, > > The explanation should be in the patch, not the cover letter. > Actually, you don't need a cover letter for a single patch. > Copying it here: > " > dpdk is fairly expensive to build in GitHub. > > It's helpful to abandon old builds as soon as there's a new > build waiting instead of wasting resources on the previous > round. > " > > 12/01/2022 07:50, Josh Soref: > > Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> > > --- > > + concurrency: > > + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler > }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ > matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} > > + cancel-in-progress: true > > The goal of the CI is to catch any issue in a submitted patch. > Is your change cancelling a test of a patch when another one is submitted? > If it's on the same branch or if it's in the same pull request yes, otherwise, no. >
Aaron, David, Please could you review this patch? Thanks 13/01/2022 13:41, Josh Soref: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:42 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The explanation should be in the patch, not the cover letter. > > Actually, you don't need a cover letter for a single patch. > > Copying it here: > > " > > dpdk is fairly expensive to build in GitHub. > > > > It's helpful to abandon old builds as soon as there's a new > > build waiting instead of wasting resources on the previous > > round. > > " > > > > 12/01/2022 07:50, Josh Soref: > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > + concurrency: > > > + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler > > }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ > > matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} > > > + cancel-in-progress: true > > > > The goal of the CI is to catch any issue in a submitted patch. > > Is your change cancelling a test of a patch when another one is submitted? > > > > If it's on the same branch or if it's in the same pull request yes, > otherwise, no.
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> writes: > Aaron, David, > Please could you review this patch? > Thanks > > 13/01/2022 13:41, Josh Soref: >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:42 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > The explanation should be in the patch, not the cover letter. >> > Actually, you don't need a cover letter for a single patch. >> > Copying it here: >> > " >> > dpdk is fairly expensive to build in GitHub. >> > >> > It's helpful to abandon old builds as soon as there's a new >> > build waiting instead of wasting resources on the previous >> > round. >> > " >> > >> > 12/01/2022 07:50, Josh Soref: >> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> >> > > --- >> > > + concurrency: >> > > + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler >> > }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ >> > matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} >> > > + cancel-in-progress: true >> > >> > The goal of the CI is to catch any issue in a submitted patch. >> > Is your change cancelling a test of a patch when another one is submitted? >> > >> >> If it's on the same branch or if it's in the same pull request yes, >> otherwise, no. We currently have a report on every patch, which helps us when a patch series has a breaking failure in the middle and then fixes it in a later patch. With the mechanism you have here, we lose that ability - it is important to have, as a `git bisect` can be broken without this feature. How much of a problem is this in practice? I want us to be good citizens, but also I don't want to lose the bisect-ability of the series.
03/02/2022 21:21, Aaron Conole: > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> writes: > > > Aaron, David, > > Please could you review this patch? > > Thanks > > > > 13/01/2022 13:41, Josh Soref: > >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 6:42 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > The explanation should be in the patch, not the cover letter. > >> > Actually, you don't need a cover letter for a single patch. > >> > Copying it here: > >> > " > >> > dpdk is fairly expensive to build in GitHub. > >> > > >> > It's helpful to abandon old builds as soon as there's a new > >> > build waiting instead of wasting resources on the previous > >> > round. > >> > " > >> > > >> > 12/01/2022 07:50, Josh Soref: > >> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> > >> > > --- > >> > > + concurrency: > >> > > + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler > >> > }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ > >> > matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} > >> > > + cancel-in-progress: true > >> > > >> > The goal of the CI is to catch any issue in a submitted patch. > >> > Is your change cancelling a test of a patch when another one is submitted? > >> > > >> > >> If it's on the same branch or if it's in the same pull request yes, > >> otherwise, no. > > We currently have a report on every patch, which helps us when a patch > series has a breaking failure in the middle and then fixes it in a later > patch. With the mechanism you have here, we lose that ability - it is > important to have, as a `git bisect` can be broken without this feature. Good point. > How much of a problem is this in practice? I want us to be good > citizens, but also I don't want to lose the bisect-ability of the > series. Bisectability is important. So we have to reject this patch, right? Or any other idea?
diff --git a/.github/workflows/build.yml b/.github/workflows/build.yml index 6cf997d6..a171d430 100644 --- a/.github/workflows/build.yml +++ b/.github/workflows/build.yml @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ defaults: jobs: build: name: ${{ join(matrix.config.*, '-') }} + concurrency: + group: build-${{ matrix.config.os }}-${{ matrix.config.compiler }}-${{ matrix.config.library }}-${{ matrix.config.cross }}-${{ matrix.config.mini }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.ref }} + cancel-in-progress: true runs-on: ${{ matrix.config.os }} env: AARCH64: ${{ matrix.config.cross == 'aarch64' }}
Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com> --- .github/workflows/build.yml | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)