On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:33:37 +0800
Fam Zheng 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
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 \
> > dock
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I'm a little concerned about the fact that we've now got three different
> sets of tests that are being run on pull requests. There are the tests
hmm 4? there is also Shippable cross-builds:
https://app.shippable.com/github/qemu/qemu
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2017-07-17 13:31, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> I think we had it in 'make check' for a while, but I seem to remember
>> that people complained about things like the disk space that some of the
>> tests needed for temporary files, and some exotic syst
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"
* checkpat
On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 19:03 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 07/25 10:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > For patchew, I basically ignore patchew compile failure emails
> > because it is too painful to get to the bottom of the email
> > where the actual error message is because of the pages and
> > pages
On Tue, 07/25 10:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
> For patchew, I basically ignore patchew compile failure emails
> because it is too painful to get to the bottom of the email
> where the actual error message is because of the pages and
> pages and pages of useless progress output :-(
Isn't it very easy
On 17 July 2017 at 11:26, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:06:12AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> The current 'quiet' mode is not quite aimed at the same purpose:
>> it's good for interactive use where you don't want the long detail
>> of command lines but you do want some pe
On Mon, 07/17 11:02, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I'd like to see a web page that provides a list of all mail threads that
> the test system has queued, with status of which jobs and running, and
> once completed, provides the full logs.
The index page already exists (no running jobs information, t
On Tue, 07/18 10:42, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 18 July 2017 at 10:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > Could the test be rewritten to provide a proper timeout handling
> > > instead? Tests should clearly fail after a while instead of
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 07:28:50AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 07/17 12:39, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > > Q3: What other tests do maintainers want? Different hosts? Different
> > > configure
> > > combinations?
> >
> > Would running qemu-iotests (at least the 'quick' group) be possible or
> >
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 July 2017 at 10:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Could the test be rewritten to provide a proper timeout handling
> > instead? Tests should clearly fail after a while instead of hanging
> > forever...
> > Or maybe we could add some m
On 18 July 2017 at 10:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Could the test be rewritten to provide a proper timeout handling
> instead? Tests should clearly fail after a while instead of hanging
> forever...
> Or maybe we could add some magic that the troublesome tests are not
> executed if a certain environme
On 18.07.2017 01:17, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 07/17 11:41, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 17.07.2017 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
>>>
>>> So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series:
>>>
>
On Mon, 07/17 12:39, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Q3: What other tests do maintainers want? Different hosts? Different
> > configure
> > combinations?
>
> Would running qemu-iotests (at least the 'quick' group) be possible or
> would that take too many resources?
As long as it can be done in several
On Mon, 07/17 11:41, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17.07.2017 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
> >
> > So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series:
> >
> > * Docker tests
> > Basically
On 2017-07-17 13:31, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 17.07.2017 um 12:49 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
>> On 17 July 2017 at 11:39, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Only today I noticed again that two recently merged pull requests broke
>>> qemu-iotests cases, so I must assume that apart from some block
>>> maintain
Am 17.07.2017 um 12:49 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
> On 17 July 2017 at 11:39, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Only today I noticed again that two recently merged pull requests broke
> > qemu-iotests cases, so I must assume that apart from some block
> > maintainers, nobody runs it regularly.
>
> If "ma
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:00:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 July 2017 at 11:20, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > I'm a little concerned about the fact that we've now got three different
> > sets of tests that are being run on pull requests. There are the tests
> > that Peter runs on variou
On 17 July 2017 at 11:20, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I'm a little concerned about the fact that we've now got three different
> sets of tests that are being run on pull requests. There are the tests
> that Peter runs on various combinations at time of merge, the tests run
> by patchw at time of s
On 17 July 2017 at 11:39, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Only today I noticed again that two recently merged pull requests broke
> qemu-iotests cases, so I must assume that apart from some block
> maintainers, nobody runs it regularly.
If "make check" doesn't run it, it doesn't get run :-)
I actually looked
Am 17.07.2017 um 08:35 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
>
> So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series:
>
> * Docker tests
> Basically it is
> make docker-test-quick@centos6
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:06:12AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 July 2017 at 10:39, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 07/17 10:28, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> Ideally we'd streamline our make process to not produce so much
> >> irrelevant output :-)
> >
> > Does that mean to make "quite-command" a
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:41:38AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17.07.2017 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
> >
> > So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series:
> >
> > * Docker tes
On 17 July 2017 at 10:39, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 07/17 10:28, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Ideally we'd streamline our make process to not produce so much
>> irrelevant output :-)
>
> Does that mean to make "quite-command" absolutely quiet if V=1 is not
> specified?
The current 'quiet' mode is no
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:05:31AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew. Is
> > that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all the results concatenated
> > into
> > o
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
>
> So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series:
>
> * Docker tests
> Basically it is
> make docker-test-quic
On 17.07.2017 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
>
> So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series:
>
> * Docker tests
> Basically it is
> make docker-test-quick@centos6 \
>
On Mon, 07/17 10:28, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 July 2017 at 10:05, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew.
> >> Is
> >> that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all t
On 17 July 2017 at 10:05, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew. Is
>> that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all the results concatenated into
>> one?
>
> I'd like to avo
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew. Is
> that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all the results concatenated into
> one?
I'd like to avoid situations where one of the failure emails is sent
hour
Hi all,
Today I've included a fourth type of the automatic patchew replies: FreeBSD.
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-tes
32 matches
Mail list logo
