[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ci: reorganise Travis jobs

[David Marchand]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:35 PM Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> 19/02/2020 22:39, Aaron Conole:
> >> > David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> > > Let's prune the jobs list to limit the amount of time spent by the robot
> >> > > in Travis.
> >> > >
> >> > > Since meson enables automatically the relevant components, there is not
> >> > > much gain in testing with extra_packages vs required_packages only.
> >> > >
> >> > > For a given arch/compiler/env combination, compilation is first tested
> >> > > in all jobs that run tests or build the docs or run the ABI checks.
> >> > > In the same context, for jobs that accumulates running tests, building
> >> > > the docs etc..., those steps are independent and can be split to save
> >> > > some cpu on Travis.
> >> > >
> >> > > With this, we go down from 21 to 15 jobs.
> >> > >
> >> > > Note: this patch requires a flush of the existing caches in Travis.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> >> > > ---
> >> >
> >> > In general, I think the idea with required vs. extra was to have a build
> >> > that did the minimum required, and one that did all the packages (to
> >> > allow a minimum vs. full DPDK).
> >> >
> >> > At least, that's from
> >> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124007.html
> >>
> >> I think the benefit of a minimum build is to have a quick report,
> >> and easy to setup.
> >
> > Yes, Travis serves as a first gate when submitting patches.
> > But since Travis is best effort/free, we can't have a full coverage.
> >
> >
> >> > Not sure if that's still something anyone cares about.
> >>
> >> Given that Travis knows how to satisfy the dependencies,
> >> and that we must wait for all jobs to finish,
> >> I don't see any benefit of a minimal setup.
> >
> > This minimal setup also tests that dpdk dependencies are correct.
> > If a change makes something rely on libX and libX is in the packages
> > always installed in Travis, the missing dependency would not get
> > caught.
> >
> > But here, this adds too many jobs.
> >
> > UNH, Intel and other CIs should step in and fill this kind of gap.
>
> Okay, makes sense to me.  Are one of these CI providers offering to
> cover this?

Maybe it is already covered, the best is to ask, so sending to ci at dpdk.org.

For the CI guys, which packages are installed on the systems/vms that
do compilation tests?
Is it possible to have a summary of the different setups?


Thanks.

--
David Marchand