On 2/9/21 3:37 AM, Sunny Kumar wrote:
Hey Ernesto,
Thanks!
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:46 PM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Sunny,
Happy to hear about this effort!
Regarding the label/s, there's already this `needs-qa` label, which is basically to ask QA folks to run that PR through teuthology. Could we reuse it?
Additionally, this other 'skip-teuthology' label (we could rename it as 'skip-qa' for consistency) is to make it explicit that a PR doesn't need to go through it.
Yes sure we can use any existing labels, I was considering `next` to
imply this will be marked for the next batch.
There is no need for skip-label as this action will be only triggered
for the PRs marked with label `next`.
In addition to `next` there also will be a list of required labels
(like needs-qa) and conditions(all mandatory checks passed) to be met
before getting included in the next batch.
If any PR(s) will not satisfy these criteria a comment with proper
explanation will be made.
On the batching process, my vote is for the component-wise grouping, but I understand this might mean a significant increase in runs, right? Are you planning to introduce some 'wait' period to allow more PRs enter the batch?
Yes! component-wise will increase the number of runs.
I am working to make it more like a schedule say run once or twice a
day. Longer the duration, more PRs can enter the next batch.
This seems like a good place to start, we can always adjust the batching
later if needed.
Josh
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
