On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:58:44AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 26.04.2018 16:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:22:36AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:14:00PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:09:55PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >>>> On 26.04.2018 15:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >>>>> (Starting a new thread, for more visibility) > >>>>> > >>>>> (This was: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests/device-introspect: Test > >>>>> devices with all machines, not only with "none") > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:54:43PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>>> I don't mind having make check SPEED=slow run more extensive tests. > >>>>>> Assuming we actually run them at least once in a while, which seems > >>>>>> doubtful. > >>>>> > >>>>> We probably don't do that, but we really must be running a more > >>>>> extensive (and slower) test set at least once before every > >>>>> release. > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe some people are running SPEED=slow tests, or even more > >>>>> extensive test suites like avocado-vt once in a while, but we > >>>>> need to know who is running them, and when. > >>>> > >>>> At least I am running "make check SPEED=slow" manually from time to > >>>> time, especially when we enter the hard freeze period. > >>> > >>> Hmm, we could get this done by travis. It has the concept of "cron jobs" > >>> for scheduling builds separately from pushes. > >>> > >>> So we could keep the current travis jobs unchanged, but then add an > >>> use of SPEED=slow when TRAVIS_EVENT_TYPE == "cron" in the travis.yml, > >>> so we can get SPEED=slow run once a day. Just have to be careful which > >>> jobs we make slow so we don't hit the 50 minute timeout. > >> > >> I expect SPEED=slow tests to eventually take longer than 50 > >> minutes, but we can try this and see what happens. > > > > We can run many jobs though so if qtests take longer than 50 mins, we could > > create 1 job per target arch. > > That could work... individual "make check-qtest-xxx" should be short > enough, I hope.
We would also have saved alot of time on the actual build phase before that by only building 1 target. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
