I'm sorry folks - I didn't see this until now (filters?) I must have changed this the same day I changed teuthology's behavior. It was a mistake; sorry for any inconvenience! On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I know Zack wanted this on teuthology, but I really don't think it's >>> acceptable for the qa-suite stuff -- it practically guarantees we won't be >>> able to merge what was actually tested! >>> Also, those branches need to be coordinated with ceph PRs and continuous >>> rebasing of them over the long periods of time that can entail is just not >>> feasible. >>> -Greg >> >> Personally I like "Require status checks to pass before merging", but >> the other setting, "Require branches to be up to date >> before merging" setting is pretty strict, particularly when every PR >> has to be rebased by hand. > > Oh yes, the fast-forward requirement is what I meant as well — I'm > really glad we flipped the switch to require tests be passing > everywhere! > -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
