Ian / Ian, Daniel V. was lurking on a recent CentOS Virt SIG IRC meetings, and asked about testing the libvirt git repo against libxl. I mentioned that we already had some basic tests to do that, and he asked whether it would make sense to have the push gate e-mail the libvirt list. I have no idea how the libvirt people feel about that, so I'll let DV make his case, and also let he Ians give their opinions.

On 06/03/2014 03:30 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:16:49PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> Ian / Ian, >> >> Daniel V. was lurking on a recent CentOS Virt SIG IRC meetings, and asked >> about testing the libvirt git repo against libxl. I mentioned that we >> already had some basic tests to do that, and he asked whether it would make >> sense to have the push gate e-mail the libvirt list. >> >> I have no idea how the libvirt people feel about that, so I'll let DV make >> his case, and also let he Ians give their opinions. > I guess from my POV the answer probably hinges on the reliability of the > test harness. If it has a very low false failure rate, then it'd be ok > to send it to this list. Conversely if there's a non-trivial false failure > rate it'd be better to have it go to an individual who filters it and just > forwards the real failures to the list. > > An alternative idea would be for us to setup a new 'libvirt-testing' > mailing list, exclusively for spamming by CI systems, that people could > opt-in to subscribing to. In my experience the test e-mails are fairly chatty, and fail for any number of reasons. The most recent test mail can be found here, for instance: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/xen/devel/332583 And it seems to have failed because of a problem with the ARM testing hardware (since builds of Xen and Linux fail as well). My suspicion is that most people on libvir-list will learn to ignore the mails unless someone raises a particular failure as something worth looking at; in which case it might be better to have a separate opt-in list. (Or to wait until someone on xen-devel raises the issue.)

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:16:49PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > Ian / Ian, > > Daniel V. was lurking on a recent CentOS Virt SIG IRC meetings, and asked > about testing the libvirt git repo against libxl. I mentioned that we > already had some basic tests to do that, and he asked whether it would make > sense to have the push gate e-mail the libvirt list. > > I have no idea how the libvirt people feel about that, so I'll let DV make > his case, and also let he Ians give their opinions. Actually Dan Berrange should be included. I think the nicest would be a private ping and the information available online,

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:25:46AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 00:00 +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:16:49PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > > Ian / Ian, > > > > > > Daniel V. was lurking on a recent CentOS Virt SIG IRC meetings, and asked > > > about testing the libvirt git repo against libxl. I mentioned that we > > > already had some basic tests to do that, and he asked whether it would make > > > sense to have the push gate e-mail the libvirt list. > > > > > > I have no idea how the libvirt people feel about that, so I'll let DV make > > > his case, and also let he Ians give their opinions. > > > > Actually Dan Berrange should be included. I think the nicest would > > be a private ping and the information available online, > > Why private and not to the libvir list? Well the point is that the libvir-list is already high traffic and avoiding automated mails to it would help.

Also the compile box doesn't send mail directly to the list in case of breakage either, so that would be coherent. > The information is available online via the test report (which don't > stay around forever, but for weeks at least). > > I'm happy to do whatever you guys would prefer, just let me know. Do you have a pointer to where the test reports sit, that would be helpful as a first step :-)