On 1 Apr 2015, at 03:03, Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> That's fine. I left a note for you in the script, regarding what I >> think it needs to do at that point. > > Here is the comment: > >> # We shouldn't be touching CR at all. For V, we should set V+1 iff this >> # test succeeded *and* the value was already 0 or 1, V-1 otherwise. I >> # don't know how to do that, but the various smoke tests must be doing >> # something similar/equivalent. It's also possible that this part should >> # be done as a post-build action instead. > > The problem is indeed that we do now know how to retreive previous V > value. I guess gerrit is the place where V combinations should be > correctly handled. > > What is the plan for NetBSD regression now? It will fail anything which > has not been rebased after recent fixes were merged, but apart from that > the thing is in rather good shape right now. It sounds like we need a solution to have both the NetBSD and CentOS regressions run, and only give the +1 when both of them have successfully finished. If either of them fail, then it gets a -1. Research time. ;) + Justin -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to several petabytes, and handling thousands of clients. My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
