| Message ID | 1392039370-26216-1-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 18:14 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST v2] cr-daily-branch: Make it possible to suppress the forcing of a baseline test"): > > This is undesirable (most of the time) in a standalone environment, where you > > are mostl ikely to be interested in the current version and not historical > > comparissons. > > > > Not sure there isn't a better way. > > Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Thanks. > (But there's a lot of stuff in the queue so don't push it just yet...) Understood.
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 09:35 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 18:14 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST v2] cr-daily-branch: Make it possible to suppress the forcing of a baseline test"): > > > This is undesirable (most of the time) in a standalone environment, where you > > > are mostl ikely to be interested in the current version and not historical > > > comparissons. > > > > > > Not sure there isn't a better way. > > > > Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > > Thanks. > > > (But there's a lot of stuff in the queue so don't push it just yet...) > > Understood. I think this wasn't in the wip.rebasing branch which you were keeping and merged at a suitable point. Is it OK to go in now? Things seem quiet. Ian.
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v2] cr-daily-branch: Make it possible to suppress the forcing of a baseline test"):
> I think this wasn't in the wip.rebasing branch which you were keeping
> and merged at a suitable point. Is it OK to go in now? Things seem
> quiet.
Yes, go ahead.
Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Ian.
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 11:30 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v2] cr-daily-branch: Make it possible to suppress the forcing of a baseline test"): > > I think this wasn't in the wip.rebasing branch which you were keeping > > and merged at a suitable point. Is it OK to go in now? Things seem > > quiet. > > Yes, go ahead. > > Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Thanks. I have now pushed: cf805fa Allow forcing the use of current osstest HEAD for branch=osstest f836811 ts-hosts-allocate-Standalone: abort if the host to use has changed fd271bd cs-adjust-flight: fix runvar-del 499bafb cr-daily-branch: Make it possible to suppress the forcing of a baseline test to the pretest branch. Ian.
diff --git a/cr-daily-branch b/cr-daily-branch index da6cf2f..c4a0872 100755 --- a/cr-daily-branch +++ b/cr-daily-branch @@ -85,18 +85,20 @@ check_tested () { "$@" } -testedflight=`check_tested --revision-$tree="$OLD_REVISION"` - -if [ "x$testedflight" = x ]; then - wantpush=false - skipidentical=false - force_baseline=true - if [ "x$treeurl" != xnone: ]; then - treearg=--tree-$tree=$treeurl - fi - tested_revision=`check_tested $treearg --print-revision=$tree` - if [ "x$tested_revision" != x ]; then - OLD_REVISION="$tested_revision" +if [ "x$OSSTEST_NO_BASELINE" != xy ] ; then + testedflight=`check_tested --revision-$tree="$OLD_REVISION"` + + if [ "x$testedflight" = x ]; then + wantpush=false + skipidentical=false + force_baseline=true + if [ "x$treeurl" != xnone: ]; then + treearg=--tree-$tree=$treeurl + fi + tested_revision=`check_tested $treearg --print-revision=$tree` + if [ "x$tested_revision" != x ]; then + OLD_REVISION="$tested_revision" + fi fi fi
This is undesirable (most of the time) in a standalone environment, where you are mostl ikely to be interested in the current version and not historical comparissons. Not sure there isn't a better way. Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> --- v2: Remove spurious leading "i" from subject (damn you vi!) Use safer test conditional/more obvious syntax Remove unneeded call to check_tested as well. --- cr-daily-branch | 26 ++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)