25/03/2021 17:40, Aaron Conole: > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes: > >> Travis is not reliable for native Arm and PPC: > >> https://travis-ci.community/t/disk-quota-exceeded-on-arm64/7619/6 > >> > >> In order to get reliable Travis reports, > >> the use of Arm machines is removed until Travis fixes it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > We managed without applying this patch. > > > > After one year passed, what is the situation today regarding Travis? > > Can we rely on Travis service? > > So far, yes. > > > For which workload? Which architecture? > > I think for all of them. Looking at even the failures which pop up for > the latest patches, they seem like real failures. > > ex: > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493722400 > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493688879 > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493624012 > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493611597 > > These are ABI, and doc failures - different arches, etc. > > Seems like it's quite usable. > > > Aaron, what do you recommend? > > I think we should drop this patch - Travis continues to be useful even > for individual developers checking their own results. It seems the > service works quite a bit better now for the project as well, thanks to > Honnappa and other ARM folks for working with them.
Thanks all, patch classified as "Rejected".
