Re: 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
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 3.8 KB)