<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bkorren@redhat.com" target="_blank">bkorren@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">>>> > [1]: <a href="http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards</a><br>
>>> ><br>
><br>
> That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this<br>
almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.<br>
I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the<br>
fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had<br>
mostly been placed in their hands...</blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I'm offering is not letting us a choice, exactly because what you are saying regarding the fact that most of the influence of what happens in CI is in our hands. otherwise what happens is the current situation where some/most of the developers are not aware of their options, or misses the mails or whatever..</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
><br>
> From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their patches<br>
> drafts.. moreover,<br>
> - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it is a<br>
> draft. (and I'm not the only one)<br>
<br>
</span>Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft<br>
><br>
</span>By 'label' you mean set topic?<br>
Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to<br>
indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the reality is<br>
> that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice things you<br>
> guys show here..<br>
<br>
</span>I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...) should<br>
jobs not run?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Most of the review process doesn't need the jobs to run. a patch has 5-10, and sometimes much more sets until it is being merged- you don't need to run the jobs every single time you are updating your patch..</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> I still think that it will be a better solution to force the developer to<br>
> activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even doing it<br>
> with the jenkins client..)<br>
><br>
</span>We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used<br>
by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm<br>
by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.</div><div>I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..</div><div>As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered only when needed.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
--<br>
Barak Korren<br>
<a href="mailto:bkorren@redhat.com">bkorren@redhat.com</a><br>
RHEV-CI Team<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>