Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> writes: > 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... ?
I agree with using the MAINTAINERS file from the repo. >> > >> > - 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. +1
