[openib-general] OpenSM Issues of the last couple days

[Eitan Zahavi]

Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 13:20 Sat 09 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>   
>> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 13:01, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Eitan,
>>>
>>> On 16:26 Sat 09 Dec     , Eitan Zahavi wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Without another devel branch I will not be able to test patches before 
>>>> the make it into the trunk.
>>>>
>>>> I do not know how to make an automatic mail extraction into patches into 
>>>> tree such that I can have automatic patch check.
>>>>         
>>> You can just pipe emails with patches to git-am (manually after review
>>> or automatically via procmail), so this will be committed in the local
>>> tree/branch as you want.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I am not a great fan of a new branch too.
>>>>
>>>> So we need to agree that regression runs resulting with bug reporting 
>>>> post commit to the trunk is our mode of work.
>>>>         
>>> It is ok for me. At least as start point, if we will have automatic
>>> nightly regression tests for the trunk it is just fine. If this will
>>> work, and after collecting some experience we may think about
>>> "quarantine" branch/tree and the regression testing expansion.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I do not have a big issue with this (but it is more work for Hal).
>>>>         
>>> Hal, what do you say?
>>>       
>> What is the nightly regression and who will run it ?
>>     
>
> Good question. I guess Eitan has automated regression test suite which
> is able to pull _committed_ tree and run test series. Eitan, right?
>   
Yes that is what we have.
Both simulated fabrics as well as the ULPs regression which uses OpenSM 
from the trunk (running a set of tests on smaller fabrics).
>   
>> It seems to me that the patches could be automated or a manual procedure
>> can be put in place so I am not keen on maintaining a pre-trunk branch
>> but would if I am convinced it can't be done easily by the methods I
>> mentioned, that the regression would be run nightly on a continuing
>> basis, and that reports would be issued based on the runs (to interested
>> parties).
>>     
>
> Ok.
>
> I think we could start testing with trunk if we still have the issue
> with pre-trunk patches. Systematic regression report would be good
> thing. All this should be good start, and if I understand correctly this
> can be launched immediately. Then we can deal with pre-trunk stuff.
>
> Eitan, how is it hard for you to prepare procmail's rule which will
> automatically apply the patches from emails to the local pre-trunk
> tree? Or do you think it is insufficient?
>   
I am not sure I can do the procmail thing myself. I am not familiar with 
it and lack the time to learn.
I can ask around. But I question why we need to define a different 
testing method from the rest of the OFA tree?
> Sasha
>
>   
>> -- Hal
>>
>>     
>>> Sasha
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Eitan
>>>>
>>>> Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On 18:42 Fri 08 Dec     , Eitan Zahavi wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Instead on relying on bug reading I use automatic regression. I wish we 
>>>>>> could agree on some regression that
>>>>>> each developer will have to run before patches are committed to the trunk.
>>>>>> On my side I would love to have an automatic way to include all the 
>>>>>> patches posted (one at a time) run "dead or alive" check
>>>>>> and provide feedback. Currently my automation is limited to testing the 
>>>>>> trunk. So I will always be complaining after the patches are
>>>>>> committed. I think this is the way most other components testing works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What kind of regression suite do you and Sasha use?
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>             
>>>>> On my side it clearly depends from kind of changes. In general I would
>>>>> call this "uni-testing".
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Can we agree on minimal pre-commit testing?
>>>>>> Can we have a branch for that sake where all patches will first have to 
>>>>>> go into for 2 days? (it will allow for pre-trunk testing).
>>>>>>    
>>>>>>             
>>>>> One more development branch? Will you test (or even see) this? If so I
>>>>> can publish the "fresh" tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sasha
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> openib-general mailing list
>>>>> openib-general at openib.org
>>>>> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, please visit 
>>>>> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>>>>>  
>>>>>           
>
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>