From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-74307-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 67344 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2016 14:30:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 66904 invoked by uid 89); 2 Nov 2016 14:30:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=our, wish
X-HELO: mail-qk0-f182.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
         :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=oeph5JTHtbM2Umj2yykPnw7WqUiwGYpoQ6hCJel0YAU=;
        b=cEtKAJiTw1NBXqmkGEP60IVkxKYR9cf3qmUAB73d+LKcSEAuqR9G8hC9/sEtq3NEdB
         jgA0h56JHoi67hgmcxx1rm4y64IyJgjpcehUaRzYwpKpfTFGZnmd5ThX6gz1rQxRespz
         ZJVPLMNIeuJ5uIhBUoPpHrB783ZCwQExRNv79ktCPpKoSBO2DJjjy5RvU98U7vXYSz1T
         ogpedGpKNeREuwvV3ltPvhtU1JplrPZpSruC/2YhBpsXtxcaawdBSKqwtirRVt9T6vlR
         BPsdRSAmqt5Qosqm61ZYGb4qxraVUCWHKexlqkNX0cy+RsGstOBLolfI3dvTkXxsWS0t
         E0Hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveTWD85FHh5ac8Ov78Kk3EY5tm7A/IuXDTiHy8uSMq2lHMflGJsQ7KYWrSQAyKXyMFQ
X-Received: by 10.55.164.209 with SMTP id n200mr3163511qke.299.1478097040159;
        Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: RFC: libc-testresults mailing list
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611021254190.29297@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <df1d2a90-bf16-87e9-a14a-02c73051fe14@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:30:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611021254190.29297@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2

On 11/02/2016 09:05 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Andrew Pinski asked in 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-07/msg00460.html> about a 
> mailing list for sending test results to.
> 
> I propose that we create a libc-testresults mailing list for test results 
> to be sent to by any kind of automation (not for discussions, if people 
> wish to discuss things about the results they should take replies to 
> libc-alpha with a meaningful Subject line rather than the subject line of 
> the results posting).
> 
> This would explicitly include results reporting on e.g. whether glibc 
> builds in various configurations, not just results of the glibc testsuite 
> itself.  It would also include any systems automatically detecting 
> regressions and reporting on those regressions.  It might be useful to 
> have something like GCC's contrib/test_summary to collect results and 
> information about the configuration and versions of various components 
> (and indeed for test runs to automatically record some information such as 
> the kernel version on the system, possibly remote, that test programs are 
> run on), but this is not required for such a list to be useful.
> 
> Comments?

In general this seems like a good idea.

We could then link from the per-release wiki page to a mailing list URL
to show full test result details as we approach the final release.

Do we expect that libc-testresults is a superset of those builds we have
connected to our buildbot CI infrastructure?

Do we expect buildbot test results to go to libc-testresults for archiving?

Cheers,
Carlos.