On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > IIRC, we were marking the verified as +1 in case of a known spurious > failure, can't we continue to do the same for the known spurious > failures just to unblock the patches getting merged till the problems > are resolved? While its understood that such is the case, the premise is rather wrong - we should run a spurious failure again and get the "+1" since we know it only fails spuriously :-). If it fails consistently then there is something odd with the patch. All it requires is another trigger in Jenkins. There is a reason to slow down merging patches, in the long run it increases quality of the codebase and indeed it has done that to GlusterFS. Our master is readily usable for beta testing anyday while historically we used to patches which were merged which generated segfaults upon mount - we even had patches which would fail to compile but were hastily pushed by Developers. Yes there is always a balance though, so we should be careful while doing +1 to patches which requires "quick" merging as a premise. -- Religious confuse piety with mere ritual, the virtuous confuse regulation with outcomes _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
