Re: [Qemu-devel] Status and RFC of patchew testings on QEMU

[Fam Zheng]

On Mon, 07/17 10:28, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 July 2017 at 10:05, Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:35:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> Q1: In the worst case, you get four individual auto replies from patchew. 
> >> Is
> >> that too many? Do you prefer one reply with all the results concatenated 
> >> into
> >> one?
> >
> > I'd like to avoid situations where one of the failure emails is sent
> > hours after the others, because it's possible that the patch series
> > author has already sent the next (still broken) revision by that time.
> > The simplest way to avoid that is by sending just one email.
> >
> >> Q2: Some think the full log in the mail body is more than necessary. Is it
> >> better or worse if it is a "tail -n 200" of the log in the body and the 
> >> full log
> >> attached?
> >
> > tail output and a link to the full logs would be nice.  Often there is a
> > lot of irrelevant output.
> 
> Ideally we'd streamline our make process to not produce so much
> irrelevant output :-)

Does that mean to make "quite-command" absolutely quiet if V=1 is not specified?
;-)

Fam