On 09/27/2012 10:55 AM, Deepak C Shetty wrote:
On 09/26/2012 09:32 PM, Anand Avati wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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.
Another less disruptive approach is to reconfigure jenkins to give -1
verified on test failure and 0 verified on success (but still make a
"passed" comment). The +1 verified should come outside of jenkins.
I think thats a better approach and second that. Another soln would be
for gerrit to have "Build" section liek we have Code Review and Verifed
sectoin.. and jenkins giving a +1/-1 for the Build success/Failure, but
'guess changing gerrit would be long term ?
Yes, changing gerrit would be long term.
Even, I like the idea of Jenkins providing 0 and -1. It seems less
disruptive too.
-Vijay
