13/04/2021 17:04, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:59:00PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:47 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > > 13/04/2021 15:50, Aaron Conole: > > > > > > > One proposal we (Michael and I) have toyed with for our lab is having > > > > the infrastructure monitor patchwork comments for a restart flag, and > > > > kick off based on that information. Patchwork tracks all of the > > > > comments for each patch / series so we could look at the series that > > > > are still in a state for 'merging' (new, assigned, etc) and check the > > > > patch .comments API for new comments. Getting the data from PW should > > > > be pretty simple - but I think that knowing whether to kick off the > > > > test might be more difficult. We have concerns about which messages we > > > > should accept (for example, can anyone ask for a series to be rerun, and > > > > we'll need to track which rerun messages we've accepted). The > > > > convention needs to be something we all can work with (ie: /Re-check: > > > > [checkname] or something as a single line in the email). > > > > > > > > This is just a start to identify and explain the concern. Maybe there > > > > are other issues we've not considered, or maybe folks think this is a > > > > terrible idea not worth spending any time developing. I think there's > > > > enough use for it that I am raising it here, and we can discuss it. > > > > > > First question: WHO should be allowed to ask for a re-run? > > > - everybody > > > - patchwork delegate > > > > Patchwork delegate requires to maintain a map between pw logins and an > > actual mail address (if we go with email for the second point). > > > > > - a list of maintainers > > > > I'd vote on any maintainer from MAINTAINERS, _but_ it must be from the > > files in the repo, not in the series being tested. > > So maybe the easier is to have an explicit list... ? > > > > > > - author > > Just listing this option for discussion, but this is dangerous, as any > > user could then call reruns. > > > > I would tend towards including this, on the basis that any author can > already get a re-run just be resubmitting a new version of their patchset. > This just simplifies that for all concerned.
I agree, and it would be very convenient for authors hitting a strange failure: they can double check without bothering maintainers.
