--yhze8HlyfmXt1APY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/09 11:10, Amit Aviram wrote:
+1, this will be the best suggestion. we can try adding a manual trigger for drafts if needed, still need to check if possible.
e.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Eli Mesika <emesika@redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barak Korren" <bkorren@redhat.com> To: "Amit Aviram" <aaviram@redhat.com> Cc: "infra" <infra@ovirt.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 5:16:30 PM Subject: Re: Actively triggering of CI jobs
I was thinking, maybe it would be better if we will explicitly require to run the CI jobs when we push patches.. then only when the developer will need the job's feedback it will be activated. no redundant jobs wi=
ll
run,
and we will wait much less for the jobs to finish when we will actually need them.
Why not simply submit your patches as a Draft until the point you want= CI to run on them, then you can simply publish them ... This is the way I am using and it's simple ...
It seems to me that it will me too easy to forget to run the CI this way.
We barely merge patches that did not pass the CI tests.. only if it fai= ls on general errors that doesn't belong the patch's context. but it is part of the developing process, we can't just forget to using it. that means
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> wrote: =20 that it is mandatory to run it at some point if a developer wants his patches to be merged. which means the developer runs it *only* when it is ready to be merged. (much much less triggered jobs!) =20 =20
There is another way though - To make the jobs do a lot less work. Most anything has to do what what actually happens in CI resides in the project`s automation directory now days (see [1]). If you want =
to
make CI smarter so it will not do things it shouldn't be doing, all you need to do is customize the automation scripts to be smarter and run only the needed tests for the files that were changed by the patch.
That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that.. =20 =20
--
Barak Korren bkorren@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
-- Eyal Edri Supervisor, RHEV CI EMEA ENG Virtualization R&D Red Hat Israel
phone: +972-9-7692018 irc: eedri (on #tlv #rhev-dev #rhev-integ)
=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 is a draft. (and I'm not the only one) - sometimes I need to label my patches, therefor can't make it a draft =20 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 y= ou guys show here.. =20 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..)
That effort was called the Worflow flag, but was discarded as most of the developers (and managers) did not like it. It's a new flag (as CI or Verified) that you set whenever you want it to mo= ve to the next step of the workflow, in this case, run the ci tests. Some proj= ects use it for requesting code reviews (most of infra projects have it), but ca= n be easily adapted to have as many values as needed (+1 if it needs review, +2 = to run CI jobs for example). Another thing that would help there, is using personal/feature branches, so= you develop your patches on you branch (that does not run any CI) and at any po= int you send a merge commit to the destination branch that will run the tests. This allows: * Not running any ci on non-finished patches * For each set of related patches, only one is sent to the destination branch, that runs only one job (if you send all the patches, it runs f= or each) * You can still see the per-patch history, as the merge commit includes = that info (as opposed to squashing it) Those two options do not conflict either, but both of them require from the devels to adapt their way of working.
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@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@redhat.com IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat} Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 --yhze8HlyfmXt1APY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWZ/XSAAoJEEBxx+HSYmnDY1cH/A2JQcQuidNP19HD9h5Z0l97 LdM2l+SXmRaEWh5zuj3bXJD3j9zVRTQdm0cph3xhNAD3C6WS+xy7203abylJvvIH /IB8VJPIlcZVLI1gVBcJICGdnNusGeiqh91wnsoO9ei+6KhD/rlPco28ssc2utuY ICVrrPDSUAP2GNmxcJ0zaT0oK195RZJqzhBma0uJjyxnpvTB+o1dXhOnKDIIHZ+z eBneU3tgvXo5ZzaZW0bZ8O/PB+wxt3YCl5FfcnCUvOTDII70MOs2hRJ+3fgdXa6a ULFPHuXE10+oZxUyjA1C6WB2JZPItZ85lXjDEbbzk/Pih8YkNo6vZEywixIU7FY= =1j1D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --yhze8HlyfmXt1APY--