12:37 p.m.
>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
>> >
That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
mostly been placed in their hands...
From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their patches
drafts.. moreover,
- personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it is a
draft. (and I'm not the only one)
We, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.
- sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a
draft
By 'label' you mean set topic?
Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the
reality is
that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice things you
guys show here..
I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...) should
jobs not run?
I still think that it will be a better solution to force the developer to
activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even doing it
with the jenkins client..)
We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
--
Barak Korren
bkorren(a)redhat.com
RHEV-CI Team
1 p.m.
New subject: Actively triggering of CI jobs
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > [1]:
http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
>>> >
>
> That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
>
Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
mostly been placed in their hands...
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..
>
> From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their
patches
> drafts.. moreover,
> - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it is a
> draft. (and I'm not the only one)
Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.
> - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft
>
By 'label' you mean set topic?
Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
> nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the reality
is
> that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice things
you
> guys show here..
I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...) should
jobs not run?
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..
>
> I still think that it will be a better solution to force the developer to
> activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even doing
it
> with the jenkins client..)
>
We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered only
when needed.
--
Barak Korren
bkorren(a)redhat.com
RHEV-CI Team
1:15 p.m.
New subject: Actively triggering of CI jobs
--VnOTrGv5LmZxna7m
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren
<bkorren(a)redhat.com> wrote:
=20
> >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> >>> >
> >
> > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> >
>
> Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
> fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
> mostly been placed in their hands...
=20
=20
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..
=20
=20
> >
> > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make their
> patches
> > drafts.. moreover,
> > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it i=
s a
> > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
>
> Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read this.
>
> > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft
> >
> By 'label' you mean set topic?
> Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
> indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
>
> > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the real=
ity
> is
> > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice thin=
gs
> you
> > guys show here..
>
> I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=3Ddraft...) should
> jobs not run?
>
=20
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..
=20
=20
>
> >
> > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the develope=
r
to
> > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing
or even do=
ing
> it
> > with the jenkins client..)
> >
> We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
> by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
> by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
=20
=20
The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered only
when needed.
That's not true, the workflow make job enabling optional, if you don't set =
it,
it will not run
=20
=20
=20
>
> --
> Barak Korren
> bkorren(a)redhat.com
> RHEV-CI Team
>
_______________________________________________
Infra mailing list
Infra(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--=20
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
--VnOTrGv5LmZxna7m
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWZ/9CAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDB1wIAJ4Zlhlw8xF4sDnmcG8Asilx
GgK6KTbiwr12jVMwuy+F7XF+CdoazchbQhl7tglabsgK8sbhKe7gnnBvSsswvxc7
rszIA351Bx4yNrVeRJVaNR7r+22NK9t6hO57mQENtOddNx2NFDYASzbZKRIiNkns
XxtjmHqQX7eAWYaOo55zpZ3TxLVBPB1vFPXQEvEXVysOJOzFas2naXfvM8Yoib94
GA1uSITMBsMFQWjR0iYtfcH+B5SrUmOh92DcyKhsJa3QM+mQKOc/tzwmMeOxyUbS
ytTWZzcyNmqd/3q3qASZUSVqhTRlmo4QZBfcB0IMLF9f/N1QmIH8ECflMs1TN0c=
=Qy57
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--VnOTrGv5LmZxna7m--
3:09 p.m.
New subject: Actively triggering of CI jobs
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> > >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> > >>> >
> > >
> > > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> > >
> >
> > Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> > almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> > I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of the
> > fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens in CI had
> > mostly been placed in their hands...
>
>
> 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..
>
>
> > >
> > > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make
their
> > patches
> > > drafts.. moreover,
> > > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if it
is a
> > > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
> >
> > Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will read
this.
> >
> > > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a
draft
> > >
> > By 'label' you mean set topic?
> > Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem to
> > indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
> >
> > > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the
reality
> > is
> > > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice
things
> > you
> > > guys show here..
> >
> > I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=draft...)
should
> > jobs not run?
> >
>
> 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..
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the
developer to
> > > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even
doing
> > it
> > > with the jenkins client..)
> > >
> > We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is used
> > by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with any enthusiasm
> > by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
>
>
> The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
> I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
> As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered
only
> when needed.
That's not true, the workflow make job enabling optional, if you don't set
it,
it will not run
So I think we should use it :)
Why was it rejected?
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Barak Korren
> > bkorren(a)redhat.com
> > RHEV-CI Team
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Infra mailing list
> Infra(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
--
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
8:32 p.m.
New subject: Actively triggering of CI jobs
--PxDrs/Fpf4pPiewX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/09 14:09, Amit Aviram wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, David Caro <dcaro(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
=20
> On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
> > > >>> >
> > > >
> > > > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that..
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, we can do a better job advocating that, I try to mention this
> > > almost in any infra/devel thread where 'CI' is mentioned.
> > > I'm open to suggestions about how to make developers more aware of =
the
> > > fact that the ultimate power to determine what happens
in CI had
> > > mostly been placed in their hands...
> >
> >
> > 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..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > From what I'm seeing, most of the developers here don't make
their
> > > patches
> > > > drafts.. moreover,
> > > > - personally I didn't even know that it will not trigger jobs if
=
it
> is a
> > > > draft. (and I'm not the only one)
> > >
> > > Well, now you know... Adding 'devel' with hope more devs will
read
> this.
> > >
> > > > - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a
> draft
> > > >
> > > By 'label' you mean set topic?
> > > Not sure those are mutually exclusive, 'git review' options seem
to
> > > indicate they are not. I will look deeper into that.
> > >
> > > > nowadays we are waiting for the jobs too much to finish. and the
> reality
> > > is
> > > > that too much jobs shouldn't run at all- despite all of the nice
> things
> > > you
> > > > guys show here..
> > >
> > > I which cases besides the patch not being "ready" (=3Ddraft...)
sh=
ould
> > > jobs not run?
> > >
> >
> > 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..
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I still think that it will be a better solution to force the
> developer to
> > > > activate the tests manually (by adding a flag when pushing or even
> doing
> > > it
> > > > with the jenkins client..)
> > > >
> > > We tried to add the 'workflow' flag for that at some point (It is
u=
sed
> > > by most infra projects), but it was not accepted with
any enthusiasm
> > > by the devs, you can search back the discussion on 'devel'.
> >
> >
> > The workflow makes job DISABLING optional.
> > I'm suggesting making job ENABLING optional, with some other flag..
> > As we must run it to merge- it won't be missed, and will be triggered
> only
> > when needed.
>
> That's not true, the workflow make job enabling optional, if you don't =
set
> it,
> it will not run
>
=20
So I think we should use it :)
Why was it rejected?
=20
Most people that answered just did not like the idea, they though
that it was too much extra process for the developer, and that they
had enough with the drafts for now.
=20
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Barak Korren
> > > bkorren(a)redhat.com
> > > RHEV-CI Team
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Infra mailing list
> > Infra(a)ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
>
>
> --
> David Caro
>
> Red Hat S.L.
> Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
>
> Tel.: +420 532 294 605
> Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
> IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
> Web: www.redhat.com
> RHT Global #: 82-62605
>
--=20
David Caro
Red Hat S.L.
Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D
Tel.: +420 532 294 605
Email: dcaro(a)redhat.com
IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat}
Web: www.redhat.com
RHT Global #: 82-62605
--PxDrs/Fpf4pPiewX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWmS1BAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDN+AH/0fCGyEhilR+r6RZihUuohyG
5u8uLjWrRm+lYiKouiSlI8iGQ8baFhPAdTlOSGZ09Gsu3yq+Ai1mppQYkPQojRnJ
eMdtSkVvjnVJVxGBxqV405fwuDT2LR0xspRsFVkoi0O7knXWo/N6CkwYKOlA3Kz5
2zO0RtFeLq2YJhAb9M/UrzBIPgLSeTSE4nzpnuF++qfXs/gTdDbrpx5S7yiOgvYQ
3rHiAcL/qQvUfb4Ghah+U01xaAxCZTsbY8rWveuKvOTO6deVLub7zgvcPL8kzZJv
7ehfW97UbnWmCRrooc5ctG/phZAErBztePVs3mWRs57lunR4zRXLdI1trq0vA/U=
=JmCf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--PxDrs/Fpf4pPiewX--
3233
days inactive
3270
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Amit Aviram -
Barak Korren -
David Caro