From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EDCC432BE for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 640096103A for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:33:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 640096103A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.176290.320790 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mLNY2-00059S-4V; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:50 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 176290.320790; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mLNY2-00059L-1N; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:50 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 176290; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:48 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mLNY0-00059F-D7 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:48 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mLNY0-0008BJ-BW for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:48 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mLNY0-00079q-AT for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 10:32:48 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1mLNXn-00088q-W7; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 11:32:36 +0100 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=cwyy9inWMU2OFz4WdY/TbmnH7ieKYhzdnQ4z+pCsQBM=; b=fywikXv1TWe3rr4D8XCHI+zxMy BXOIy+KbegKgUFnGfLRq14O8RvOsuqm317+hru5SmnPvh9bcvwNtWHoVHleooPTQo72kqdRBswcpI 8Vh5MrOy02knzvP218+jLlR4UDadge/A/68oMp/P99OXiGPpUnzQcB0IBMaWxd4Axfkw=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <24879.22211.552820.121035@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:32:35 +0100 To: Juergen Gross Cc: Jan Beulich , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper , George Dunlap , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Config: use Mini-OS master for xen-unstable In-Reply-To: References: <20210831073039.7101-1-jgross@suse.com> <6837d551-6473-e34d-c0ae-043fcaa9482b@suse.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [PATCH] Config: use Mini-OS master for xen-unstable"): > How do you suggest to proceed then? > > Will every Mini-OS commit require to be followed by a Xen commit then, > which will either result in a test success, or in a revert of that Xen > commit? That is how the current arrangement works. That's strict coupling. If you want to decouple it, that's possible. Ie, run a separate osstest "branch" (ie, series of flights) for mini-os; have a separate osstest-tested mini-os output branch, etc. Wei, if we were to do that, should we have a "staging" and "main" for mini-os in the main mini-os tree, or what ? Ian.