This looks great, thanks. On 17 January 2017 at 20:05, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> In any event we are now finally in the > position where our patchwork instance can be relied upon to collect emails, > and the UI is much improved. This should give us a bit more visibility into > where patches are at in the process, although we are still working on a few > places where patch series status needs to be updated (e.g. when a patch > goes > into testing). What's the plan for these status updates -- is the idea that you go to patchwork UI to see the state of a specific patch set? Or maybe a reply to either patch sender or even the ML? On top of patchwork we have built a simple smoke-testing framework called > "patchtest" [5] along with a suite of corresponding tests for OE [6]. These > tests are fairly simplistic at this point but check the basics such as > whether > a patch has been properly signed off, etc. We should soon start seeing > replies > sent to the mailing list and to submitters with results if there are any > failures, saving us from noticing and pointing out some of the more obvious > classes of mistakes. Is there a reason for patchwork only showing "success" or "failure" in the web ui, instead of linking to test results at least in in the failure case? - Jussi
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
