6:12 p.m.
Looks like [1] has added the very last line that was over the findBugs
limit of reasonable file size.
Since that change was merged all consequence patches get -1 from CI.
We should either ignore that message in the findBugs configuration or fix
that somehow. But letting CI nack the patch, then figure what's the nature
of the failure and then ignore the nack doesn't seem very productive to me.
[1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/62386/
7:16 p.m.
oops, the patch is that https://gerrit.ovirt.org/61891
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Yevgeny Zaspitsky <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Looks like [1] has added the very last line that was over the
findBugs
limit of reasonable file size.
Since that change was merged all consequence patches get -1 from CI.
We should either ignore that message in the findBugs configuration or fix
that somehow. But letting CI nack the patch, then figure what's the nature
of the failure and then ignore the nack doesn't seem very productive to me.
[1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/62386/
7:23 p.m.
Looks like the problem was solved in a later patch [1].
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/62373
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Yevgeny Zaspitsky <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
oops, the patch is that https://gerrit.ovirt.org/61891
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Yevgeny Zaspitsky <yzaspits(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Looks like [1] has added the very last line that was over the findBugs
> limit of reasonable file size.
> Since that change was merged all consequence patches get -1 from CI.
>
> We should either ignore that message in the findBugs configuration or fix
> that somehow. But letting CI nack the patch, then figure what's the nature
> of the failure and then ignore the nack doesn't seem very productive to me.
>
> [1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/62386/
>
2813
days inactive
2813
days old
2 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Yevgeny Zaspitsky