On 09/26/2012 02:52 PM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
On 09/26/2012 11:41 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
On 09/26/2012 10:34 AM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
On 09/25/2012 04:13 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
Hi All,
We intend to bring the following change in our gerrit based workflow:
- Introduce +2 and -2 for Verified in Gerrit
- +2 for Verified to be necessary for merging a patch
The intent of this proposed change is to get additional test coverage
and reduce the number of regressions that can sneak by. Jenkins would
continue to provide +1s for all submitted changes that pass basic
smoke tests. An additional +2 would be necessary from somebody who
tests the patch. Providing a +2 for Verified would be semantically
similar to adding a Tested-by: tag.
I have a basic doubt here.. How is +2 verified different than +1
verified, which is currently provided by either the author or someone
else or both. I assume that the Jenkins +1 verified is not the only
thing that is seen by the maintainer before merging the patch, he/she
should be looking at +1 verified from the author or someother person and
take the decision accordingly during merge.
That is not the work flow model we follow currently. Authors and
testers do not provide +1 verified usually and patches do get accepted
with +1 verified from Jenkins. The necessary condition today for
accepting a patch is +2 Code Review and +1 Verified. With the proposed
change it would become +2 Code Review and +2 Verified. This change
would mean that we will not merge patches even accidentally when it
has been acked by Jenkins only.
Hmm, that would be different than the way other projects ( eg. vdsm,
ovirt) use +1 verified. Wouldn't that cause confusion for people coming
from different gerrit project ?
There are other projects which use +2 Verified too. One way or the other
there are bound to be confusions. This can be handled by detailing the
workflow clearly in our development-process document.
What happens if the user / author / tester verifying the patch gives a
+1 ( thinking +2 is for priviledged/maintainer ) , the workflow will
still break.
It will be the maintainers' and authors' responsibility to educate such
users and testers. Over a period of time we will reach a point where
education would not be necessary. Till then, good documentation of this
workflow and user education should provide us adequate mitigation.
Thanks,
Vijay
