On 24/06/2019 17:29, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 09:43:42PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 6/22/19 9:12 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>> On 6/22/19 8:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 16:10, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> Am 22.06.19 um 16:55 schrieb Simon Glass: >>>>>> I'd like to better understand the benefits of the 3-month timeline. >>>>> >>>>> It takes time to learn about a release, package and build it, test it on >>>>> various hardware, investigate and report errors, wait for feedback and >>>>> fixes, rinse and repeat with the next -rc. Many people don't do this as >>>>> their main job. >>>>> >>>>> If we shorten the release cycle, newer boards will get out faster (which >>>>> is good) but the overall quality of boards not actively worked on >>>>> (because they were working good enough before) will decay, which is bad. >>>>> The only way to counteract that would be to automatically test on real >>>>> hardware rather than just building, and doing that for all these masses >>>>> of boards seems unrealistic. >>>> >>>> Here I think you are talking about distributions. But why not just >>>> take every second release? >>>> >>>> I have certain had the experience of getting a board our of the >>>> cupboard and finding that the latest U-Boot doesn't work, nor the one >>>> before, nor the three before that. >>>> >>>> Are we actually seeing an improvement in regressions? I feel that >>>> testing is the only way to get that. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we should select a small subset of boards which do get tested, >>>> and actually have custodians build/test on those for every rc? >>> >>> What I have been doing before all my recent pull requests is to boot >>> both an arm32 (Orange Pi) and and an aarch64 (Pine A64 LTS) board via >>> bootefi and GRUB. To make this easier I am using a Raspberry with a >>> relay board and a Tizen SD-Wire card (https://wiki.tizen.org/SDWire) >>> controlling the system under test, >>> cf https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5ugi3iX4AAh1bn.jpg:large >>> What would be needed is scripts to automate the testing including all >>> the Python tests. >>> >>> It would make sense to have such test automation for all of our >>> architectures similar to what Kernel CI (https://kernelci.org/) does. >> >> So who's gonna set it up and host it ? > > My hope is that we can make use of the GitLab CI features to carefully > (!!!!) expose some labs and setups.
Yes, the Gitlab CI could send jobs to lava instances to run physical boot tests, we (baylibre) are investigating this at some point, re-using our kernelCI infrastructure. Neil > > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot-Board-Maintainers mailing list > u-boot-board-maintain...@lists.denx.de > https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot-board-maintainers > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
