On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:33:37 +0800 Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07/28 02:46, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > Hi Fam, > > > > On 07/17/2017 03:35 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series: > > > > > > * Docker tests > > > Basically it is > > > make docker-test-quick@centos6 \ > > > docker-test-build@min-glib \ > > > docker-test-mingw@fedora" > > > > > > * checkpatch.pl > > > Each patch is fed to ./scripts/checkpatch.pl and all errors are > > > reported. > > > > > > * s390x > > > It runs on a machine shared by Fedora team, basically only > > > "./configure and > > > make", because "make check" hanging is tricky to deal with from an > > > automation perspective. (Ideas?) > > > > > > * FreeBSD > > > Like s390x. > > > > > [...] > > > Q4: Any other improvements/features you want? (E.g. some documentation? > > > :) > > > > I'm unsure if someone already asked about it, but is it possible to sort the > > tests, like: > > - fastest/cheapest > > - more likely to fail > > - ... > > - scarce resources at last > > > > And abort/send report on first failure. > > Different hosts run tests in parallel, currently they are three: FreeBSD, > Fedora > s390 and Fedora x86_64, and there isn't a strict order between them. > > Also I'm not sure it's a good idea to _not_ run build tests if checkpatch test > fails. Especially as sometimes checkpatch.pl reports things that can be overridden by the maintainer with a good conscience. Generally, I find it useful to get *all* problems instead of playing whack-a-mole. > > One thing I agree is that checkpatch reports should be generated as > soon as possible, which is not the case at the moment. Thanks. +1
