| Message ID | 20180627151301.9674-1-jani.nikula@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: > Lots has happened in the CI front since the first version was added. > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > --- > drm-intel.rst | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drm-intel.rst b/drm-intel.rst > index c68949a41c95..baf48f459dd9 100644 > --- a/drm-intel.rst > +++ b/drm-intel.rst > @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: > `details on testing requirements > <http://blog.ffwll.ch/2013/11/testing-requirements-for-drmi915.html>`_. > > +* The patch series has passed CI pre-merge testing. See CI details below. > + > * An open source userspace, reviewed and ready for merging by the upstream > project, must be available for new kernel ABI. Please see `details on > upstreaming requirements > @@ -186,11 +188,6 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: > (or the author) stand a chance to fairly quickly understand what goes wrong if > the commit is reported to cause a regression? > > -* `checkpatch.pl` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may > - be ignored at the committer's discretion.) > - > -* The patch does not introduce new `sparse` warnings. > - > * When pushing someone else's patch you must add your own signed-off per > http://developercertificate.org/. dim apply-branch should do this > automatically for you. > @@ -244,8 +241,6 @@ On Confidence, Complexity, and Transparency > you have involved enough people to feel comfortable if the justification for > the commit is questioned afterwards. > > -* Make sure pre-merge testing is completed successfully. > - > On Rough Consensus > ------------------ > > @@ -290,18 +285,34 @@ discussions happen in public forums, and make sure there's a searchable > permanent record of any discussions for later reference. This means that for > most things internal meetings are not the most suitable venue. > > -Pre-Merge Testing > ------------------ > +Continuous Integration and Pre-Merge Testing > +-------------------------------------------- > + > +The requirements for CI_ pre-merge testing are: > + > +* ``checkpatch.pl`` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may > + be ignored at the committer's discretion.) > + > +* The patch does not introduce new ``sparse`` warnings. > + > +* Patch series must pass IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines > + without causing regressions. > + > +* Patch series must pass full IGT tests on CI shard machines without causing > + regressions. * Patch series must pass gpu piglit tests on all CI machines without causing regressions. Very recent addition, and thus far hasn't really resulted in breakage/regression reports, but it's there&in production. Otherwise lgtm, ack. -Daniel > + > +The CI bots will send results to the patch author and intel-gfx for any patches > +tracked by patchwork. The results are also available on patchwork_ and the CI_ > +site. > + > +Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic failures are a) pre-existing, > +and b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything dubious that you can't track > +down to pre-existing and tracked issues please don't push, but instead figure > +out what's going on. > > -Our CI infrastructure is being built up and currently requirements for pre-merge > -testing are fairly simple: > +.. _CI: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ > > -* All patches must past IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines > - without causing regressions. The CI bots will send results to intel-gfx for > - any patches tracked by patchwork. Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic > - failures are a) pre-existing b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything > - dubious that you can't track down to pre-existing&tracked issues please don't > - push, but instead figure out what's going on. > +.. _patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/series/ > > Tooling > ======= > -- > 2.11.0 > > _______________________________________________ > dim-tools mailing list > dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 06:13:00PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > Lots has happened in the CI front since the first version was added. > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> > --- > drm-intel.rst | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drm-intel.rst b/drm-intel.rst > index c68949a41c95..baf48f459dd9 100644 > --- a/drm-intel.rst > +++ b/drm-intel.rst > @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: > `details on testing requirements > <http://blog.ffwll.ch/2013/11/testing-requirements-for-drmi915.html>`_. > > +* The patch series has passed CI pre-merge testing. See CI details below. > + > * An open source userspace, reviewed and ready for merging by the upstream > project, must be available for new kernel ABI. Please see `details on > upstreaming requirements > @@ -186,11 +188,6 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: > (or the author) stand a chance to fairly quickly understand what goes wrong if > the commit is reported to cause a regression? > > -* `checkpatch.pl` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may > - be ignored at the committer's discretion.) > - > -* The patch does not introduce new `sparse` warnings. > - > * When pushing someone else's patch you must add your own signed-off per > http://developercertificate.org/. dim apply-branch should do this > automatically for you. > @@ -244,8 +241,6 @@ On Confidence, Complexity, and Transparency > you have involved enough people to feel comfortable if the justification for > the commit is questioned afterwards. > > -* Make sure pre-merge testing is completed successfully. > - > On Rough Consensus > ------------------ > > @@ -290,18 +285,34 @@ discussions happen in public forums, and make sure there's a searchable > permanent record of any discussions for later reference. This means that for > most things internal meetings are not the most suitable venue. > > -Pre-Merge Testing > ------------------ > +Continuous Integration and Pre-Merge Testing > +-------------------------------------------- > + > +The requirements for CI_ pre-merge testing are: > + > +* ``checkpatch.pl`` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may > + be ignored at the committer's discretion.) > + > +* The patch does not introduce new ``sparse`` warnings. > + > +* Patch series must pass IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines > + without causing regressions. > + > +* Patch series must pass full IGT tests on CI shard machines without causing > + regressions. > + > +The CI bots will send results to the patch author and intel-gfx for any patches > +tracked by patchwork. The results are also available on patchwork_ and the CI_ > +site. > + > +Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic failures are a) pre-existing, > +and b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything dubious that you can't track > +down to pre-existing and tracked issues please don't push, but instead figure > +out what's going on. > > -Our CI infrastructure is being built up and currently requirements for pre-merge > -testing are fairly simple: > +.. _CI: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ > > -* All patches must past IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines > - without causing regressions. The CI bots will send results to intel-gfx for > - any patches tracked by patchwork. Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic > - failures are a) pre-existing b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything > - dubious that you can't track down to pre-existing&tracked issues please don't > - push, but instead figure out what's going on. > +.. _patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/series/ > > Tooling > ======= > -- > 2.11.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote: >> Lots has happened in the CI front since the first version was added. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> >> --- >> drm-intel.rst | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- >> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drm-intel.rst b/drm-intel.rst >> index c68949a41c95..baf48f459dd9 100644 >> --- a/drm-intel.rst >> +++ b/drm-intel.rst >> @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: >> `details on testing requirements >> <http://blog.ffwll.ch/2013/11/testing-requirements-for-drmi915.html>`_. >> >> +* The patch series has passed CI pre-merge testing. See CI details below. >> + >> * An open source userspace, reviewed and ready for merging by the upstream >> project, must be available for new kernel ABI. Please see `details on >> upstreaming requirements >> @@ -186,11 +188,6 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: >> (or the author) stand a chance to fairly quickly understand what goes wrong if >> the commit is reported to cause a regression? >> >> -* `checkpatch.pl` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may >> - be ignored at the committer's discretion.) >> - >> -* The patch does not introduce new `sparse` warnings. >> - >> * When pushing someone else's patch you must add your own signed-off per >> http://developercertificate.org/. dim apply-branch should do this >> automatically for you. >> @@ -244,8 +241,6 @@ On Confidence, Complexity, and Transparency >> you have involved enough people to feel comfortable if the justification for >> the commit is questioned afterwards. >> >> -* Make sure pre-merge testing is completed successfully. >> - >> On Rough Consensus >> ------------------ >> >> @@ -290,18 +285,34 @@ discussions happen in public forums, and make sure there's a searchable >> permanent record of any discussions for later reference. This means that for >> most things internal meetings are not the most suitable venue. >> >> -Pre-Merge Testing >> ------------------ >> +Continuous Integration and Pre-Merge Testing >> +-------------------------------------------- >> + >> +The requirements for CI_ pre-merge testing are: >> + >> +* ``checkpatch.pl`` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may >> + be ignored at the committer's discretion.) >> + >> +* The patch does not introduce new ``sparse`` warnings. >> + >> +* Patch series must pass IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines >> + without causing regressions. >> + >> +* Patch series must pass full IGT tests on CI shard machines without causing >> + regressions. > > * Patch series must pass gpu piglit tests on all CI machines without > causing regressions. > > Very recent addition, and thus far hasn't really resulted in > breakage/regression reports, but it's there&in production. Copy-pasted that and pushed, thanks. BR, Jani. > > Otherwise lgtm, ack. > -Daniel > >> + >> +The CI bots will send results to the patch author and intel-gfx for any patches >> +tracked by patchwork. The results are also available on patchwork_ and the CI_ >> +site. >> + >> +Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic failures are a) pre-existing, >> +and b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything dubious that you can't track >> +down to pre-existing and tracked issues please don't push, but instead figure >> +out what's going on. >> >> -Our CI infrastructure is being built up and currently requirements for pre-merge >> -testing are fairly simple: >> +.. _CI: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ >> >> -* All patches must past IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines >> - without causing regressions. The CI bots will send results to intel-gfx for >> - any patches tracked by patchwork. Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic >> - failures are a) pre-existing b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything >> - dubious that you can't track down to pre-existing&tracked issues please don't >> - push, but instead figure out what's going on. >> +.. _patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/series/ >> >> Tooling >> ======= >> -- >> 2.11.0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dim-tools mailing list >> dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
diff --git a/drm-intel.rst b/drm-intel.rst index c68949a41c95..baf48f459dd9 100644 --- a/drm-intel.rst +++ b/drm-intel.rst @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: `details on testing requirements <http://blog.ffwll.ch/2013/11/testing-requirements-for-drmi915.html>`_. +* The patch series has passed CI pre-merge testing. See CI details below. + * An open source userspace, reviewed and ready for merging by the upstream project, must be available for new kernel ABI. Please see `details on upstreaming requirements @@ -186,11 +188,6 @@ An inexhaustive list of details to check: (or the author) stand a chance to fairly quickly understand what goes wrong if the commit is reported to cause a regression? -* `checkpatch.pl` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may - be ignored at the committer's discretion.) - -* The patch does not introduce new `sparse` warnings. - * When pushing someone else's patch you must add your own signed-off per http://developercertificate.org/. dim apply-branch should do this automatically for you. @@ -244,8 +241,6 @@ On Confidence, Complexity, and Transparency you have involved enough people to feel comfortable if the justification for the commit is questioned afterwards. -* Make sure pre-merge testing is completed successfully. - On Rough Consensus ------------------ @@ -290,18 +285,34 @@ discussions happen in public forums, and make sure there's a searchable permanent record of any discussions for later reference. This means that for most things internal meetings are not the most suitable venue. -Pre-Merge Testing ------------------ +Continuous Integration and Pre-Merge Testing +-------------------------------------------- + +The requirements for CI_ pre-merge testing are: + +* ``checkpatch.pl`` does not complain. (Some of the more subjective warnings may + be ignored at the committer's discretion.) + +* The patch does not introduce new ``sparse`` warnings. + +* Patch series must pass IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines + without causing regressions. + +* Patch series must pass full IGT tests on CI shard machines without causing + regressions. + +The CI bots will send results to the patch author and intel-gfx for any patches +tracked by patchwork. The results are also available on patchwork_ and the CI_ +site. + +Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic failures are a) pre-existing, +and b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything dubious that you can't track +down to pre-existing and tracked issues please don't push, but instead figure +out what's going on. -Our CI infrastructure is being built up and currently requirements for pre-merge -testing are fairly simple: +.. _CI: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/ -* All patches must past IGT Basic Acceptance Tests (BAT) on all the CI machines - without causing regressions. The CI bots will send results to intel-gfx for - any patches tracked by patchwork. Check CI failures and make sure any sporadic - failures are a) pre-existing b) tracked in bugzilla. If there's anything - dubious that you can't track down to pre-existing&tracked issues please don't - push, but instead figure out what's going on. +.. _patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/project/intel-gfx/series/ Tooling =======
Lots has happened in the CI front since the first version was added. Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> --- drm-intel.rst | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)