Actively triggering of CI jobs
Hi all. I wanted to bring up something that might make our work with CI a bit more efficient. As developers, we obviously use Jenkins in every step we are taking in the developing process. Each patch that is pushed- or at least a big amount of our patches- triggers Jenkins jobs automatically. I can say that for myself, most of my push actions do not require any CI jobs to run. Thus reviewing and updating patches include work that triggers tons of redundant jobs that make the system slow for the jobs that are actually needed.. 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 will run, and we will wait much less for the jobs to finish when we will actually need them. Is that possible for implementation? Thanks, Amit.
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 will run, and we will wait much less for the jobs to finish when we will actually need them.
It seems to me that it will me too easy to forget to run the CI this way. 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. [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards -- Barak Korren bkorren@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
----- 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 will 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.
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.
[1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
-- Barak Korren bkorren@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team _______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
+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 will 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.
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.
[1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards
-- 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)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Eyal Edri <eedri@redhat.com> 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 will >> 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 fails 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 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!) > > >> > 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. >> > >> > [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/CI/Build_and_test_standards >> > >> > That's nice, but most of us are not aware of all that.. > > -- >> > 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) > >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 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 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..)
--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--
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@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren@redhat.com> wrote:
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@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
--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@redhat.com> wrote: =20
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@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
_______________________________________________ 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 --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--
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, David Caro <dcaro@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren@redhat.com> wrote:
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
- 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
On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote: this. 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@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@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@redhat.com IRC: dcaro|dcaroest@{freenode|oftc|redhat} Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, David Caro <dcaro@redhat.com> wrote: =20
On 12/09 12:00, Amit Aviram wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren@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 =
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=
--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: the 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@redhat.com RHEV-CI Team
_______________________________________________ Infra mailing list Infra@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@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@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--
participants (5)
-
Amit Aviram -
Barak Korren -
David Caro -
Eli Mesika -
Eyal Edri