[Piglit] [RFC] Piglit tags/releases

[Ian Romanick]

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.velikov at 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