Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
Martin
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eyal Edri <eedri(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This isn't gating.
Just trigger to run more heavy lifting CI jobs, the idea is to replace the
manual submit with automatic system like Zuul.
On Nov 21, 2016 1:32 PM, "Tal Nisan" <tnisan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Why not use +1 on verified? That way the patch owner can wait till the
> code review process is over, mark it as verified, wait for CI and then
> submit.
> It doesn't really give much added value to the code reviewers whether it's
> marked as verified or not
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Il 20/Nov/2016 17:25, "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> ha
scritto:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Barak Korren
<bkorren(a)redhat.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> Perhaps the main purpose of CI, is to prevent braking code from
>> > >> getting merged into the stable/master branches. Unfortunately our
CI
>> > >> is not there yet, and one of the reasons for that is that we do
>> > >> large
>> > >> amount of our CI tests only _after_ the code is merged.
>> > >>
>> > >> The reason for that is that when balancing through, but time
>> > >> consuming, tests (e.g. enging build with all permutations) v.s.
>> > >> faster
>> > >> but more basic ones (e.g. "findbugs" and single
permutation build),
>> > >> we
>> > >> typically choose the faster tests to be run per-patch-set and
leave
>> > >> the through testing to only be run post-merge.
>> > >>
>> > >> We'd like to change that and have the through tests also run
before
>> > >> merge. Ideally we would like to just hook stuff to the
"submit"
>> > >> button, but Gerrit doesn't allow one to do that easily. So
instead
>> > >> we'll need to adopt some kind of flag to indicate we want to
submit
>> > >> and have Jenkins
>> > >> "click" the submit button on our behalf if tests pass.
>> > >>
>> > >> I see two options here:
>> > >> 1. Use Code-Review+2 as the indicator to run "heavy" CI
and merge.
>> >
>> > This is problematic. For example in vdsm we have 5 maintainers with
>> > +2, and 4 maintainers with commit right, but only 2 are commenting
>> > regularly.
>> >
>> > >> 2. Add an "approve" flag that maintainers can set to +1
(This is
>> > >> what OpenStack is doing).
>> >
>> > This seems better.
>> >
>> > But there is another requirement - maintainer should be able to commit
>> > even if jenkins fails. Sometimes the CI is broken, or there are flakey
>> > tests
>> > breaking the build, and some jobs are failing regularly (check-merged)
>> > and I don't want to wait for it.
>>
>> Either disable the jobs or fix them. Having jobs consitently failing and
>> just ignore them is just a waste of resources.
>>
>> >
>> > Today we can override the CI vote and commit, if we keep it as is I
>> > don't
>> > see any problem with this change.
>> >
>> > Nir
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Devel mailing list
>> > Devel(a)ovirt.org
>> >
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel(a)ovirt.org
>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel(a)ovirt.org
>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel