On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 08:18 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 4:33 PM James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 15:11 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > - subsystem maintainers can configure whatever CI pre-checks > > > > they want before the series is sent to them for review (and we > > > > can work on a library of Github actions, so nobody needs to > > > > reimplement checkpatch.pl multiple times) > > > > > > What about all the patches that don't come from the GH PR? Those > > > need CI pre-checks too. We're going to implement CI twice? The > > > biggest issue I have on CI checks is applying patches. My > > > algorithm is apply to my current base (last rc1 typically) or > > > give up. I'm sure it could be a lot smarter trying several > > > branches or looking at base-commit (not consistently used) or the > > > git diff treeish hashes. What I'd really like is some bot or > > > script that's applying series and publishing git branches with a > > > messageid to git branch tool. 0-day is doing this now. Basically, > > > the opposite direction as others have mentioned. > > > > I've got to say my experience with Github CIs has been pretty > > unpleasant. Pretty much every project I've ever pushed to has had > > at least one commit reject because of a bug in the CI rather than > > the commit which they usually dump on the submitter to fix. As an > > endless devops make work project, I'm sure they're fine, but what > > we have now with 0-day is pretty much good enough for most kernel > > work, plus if it goes wrong we can ignore it and somebody else > > fixes it ... > > It's the making a git branch somewhere that I'm interested in, not > the Github part of it. If someone wants to tie GH CI to that and send > out replies to patches, then fine. We can use them if useful or > ignore if not. > > 0-day is a bit unpredictable in terms of response time. I often only > get reports after things land in linux-next which is a bit late IMO. > What is run and the priorities are all opaque. You can specifically ask it (or rather it's handlers) to send you or the mailing list a success report when the tests you've requested have run. I think they also respond to triggers (please test this branch now). I suspect what we could all do with is a nice how 0-day can work for you presentation from its handlers so all of us know all of the tricks. James
