Re: KernelCI report for stable-rc: v5.15.164

On 8/6/24 1:03 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov via groups.io wrote:
> On 8/5/24 5:40 PM, Gustavo Padovan via groups.io wrote:
>>  > > Why does this have kernelci, syzbot and tuxsuite. Let's remove it for now.
>>  >
>>  > It lists all the CI systems the report has been aggregated with. Although
> only maestro and broonie reported failures, we included
>>  > builds and test stats from all the 5 CI systems.
>>
>> I see.  Although, we can't really guarantee the quality of data coming from
>> the other origins, hence my request to use only maestro and broonie for the
>> time being. We need a high quality report, not a report with as much results
>> as possible.
>
> This is alright for a PoC. However, I'd like you guys to mention to Greg that
> we have more data from other origins, when you engage him with this, and that
> they're available on the dashboards. Or perhaps better just put that into the
> notification message itself.
>
> Finally, as we've discussed before, if a maintainer has requirements for
> particular result quality, it's best to directly apply them to data, where
> possible (e.g. check that log_excerpt is there), instead of simply selecting
> origins. That could be the next step, once we define what "good quality"
> means exactly.

This is what all the CI systems signed up for, after all: reaching out to
maintainers. And we would be breaking our promise, if we make these decisions
for them, or discriminate by origin.

Nick