Re: [PATCH] .travis.yml: Add description to each job

From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: "Wainer dos Santos Moschetta" <wainersm@redhat.com>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: "Fam Zheng" <fam@euphon.net>,
	"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] .travis.yml: Add description to each job
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:31:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5d470559-d63d-b787-bfd5-205f41d314ac@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49fd82df-eaf7-c15f-17a3-1e19f314ab84@redhat.com>

On 28/01/2020 14.20, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> 
> On 1/26/20 5:54 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 25/01/2020 19.31, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> The NAME variable can be used to describe nicely a job (see [*]).
>>> As we currently have 32 jobs, use it. This helps for quickly
>>> finding a particular job.
>>>
>>>    before: https://travis-ci.org/qemu/qemu/builds/639887646
>>>    after: https://travis-ci.org/philmd/qemu/builds/641795043
>> Very good idea, correlating a job in the GUI to an entry in the yml file
>> was really a pain, so far.
>>
>>> [*]
>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/customizing-the-build/#naming-jobs-within-matrices
>>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
>>> ---
>>>   .travis.yml | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
>>> index 6c1038a0f1..d68e35a2c5 100644
>>> --- a/.travis.yml
>>> +++ b/.travis.yml
>>> @@ -94,24 +94,28 @@ after_script:
>>>     matrix:
>>>     include:
>>> -    - env:
>>> +    - name: "[x86] GCC static (user)"
>> Could you please drop the [x86] and other architectures from the names?
>> Travis already lists the build architecture in the job status page, so
>> this information is redundant.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> 
> I agree on dropping the architecture from the names, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <wainersm@redhat.com>
> 
> 
>>>       # Alternate coroutines implementations are only really of
>>> interest to KVM users
>>>       # However we can't test against KVM on Travis so we can only
>>> run unit tests
> 
> 
> Yet another off-topic comment: If we switch those coroutine test jobs to
> Bionic then we can use KVM.

Good idea, that's certainly worth a try once your KVM-enablement patch
got included (or maybe you could also respin that patch with KVM enabled
here, too?)

 Thomas