On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 16:41:38 +0200 Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/20 4:28 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > > > What I mean is: would you blame such a developer for *not* having a > > machine himself/herself that he/she can try to reproduce the > > failure? And would you consider a "Raspberry Pi 4 Model B" an > > easily available hardware? > > My view on this is if someone merged code in mainstream QEMU and > maintains it, and if it is not easy to reproduce the setup (for a bug > reported by a CI script), then it is the responsibility of the > maintainer to resolve it. Either by providing particular access to > the hardware, or be ready to spend a long debugging session over > email and multiple time zones. > Right, the "easy to reproduce" has a lot to with access to hardware, and a lot to do with access to the same or reproducible setup. And yes, if I maintain platform/job "foobar" that was once upgraded to gating status, has since then fallen behind and doesn't allow users to easily reproduce it, it all falls unto the maintainer to resolve issues. I'd even say that people having access to identical hardware could proactively challenge a given job status as gating if they fail to reproduce it with the provided documentation/scripts. > If it is not possible, then this specific code/setup can not claim > for gating CI, and eventually mainstream isn't the best place for it. > > >> [...] > IIUC, we're in agreement. :) Thanks, - CLeber.
