On 09/30/2014 09:55 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 30/09/14 16:18, Ian Romanick wrote: >> On 09/29/2014 10:01 AM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> While I've been through the RELEASES document I believe it would be >>>> beneficial if we regularly create a tag("release"), that is to serve the >>>> following >>>> - Human understandable format >>>> I.e. version 1.0.2 comes after 1.0.1, oh there is even date in there. >>> >>> See next point. >>> >>>> - Something everyone can parse, unlike b33979a8f5c852fbffc072b0. >>>> When you don't have the tree at hand or don't know what git is. >>> >>> If either of these is the case, you have no business with piglit. >>> >>>> - Ease distributions interested in packaging piglit. >>> >>> I don't see value in distributions packaging piglit. >>> >>>> - Something for our QA and other non-developer teams to cling onto. >>> >>> I think this has actually back fired for us when we tried. Ian >>> probably remembers more. >> >> I agree with Matt. The one thing that seems useful is having a tag to >> mark the point in the piglit tree where a particular Mesa release was >> tested. The main I didn't do that on previous Mesa releases is that I >> tested with my current work tree... which had a bunch of tests that >> weren't upstream. That would have made the tag be on a SHA1 that didn't >> exist. >> >> Anything beyond that feels like wasting time catering to the wrong set >> of users. >> > I must be missing something here - Matt says it backfired, but you say > that you've not tagged your previous "mesa-xx-tested" because of local > changes. How are those two related ? > > I'm not sure I see meaning behind such tag. Is your team (going to be) > using it as a reference point of sorts ?
I'm not sure what Matt meant about back firing. Here's what I do know... We occasionally get bug reports from QA that a test has started failing on a release branch, but the regression observed relative to the piglit run of the previous release on that branch. So, the test passed on Mesa 37.5.1, but it now fails on a 37.5.2. Since we don't know what piglit was used on 37.5.1, we don't know whether the failure is due to a change in Mesa or a change in piglit... and we can't trivally bisect piglit. Having a mesa-37.5.1-release-test tag enables us to sort that out quickly. > Thanks > Emil _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit