On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:02, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/21/2015 12:19 AM, Justin Clift wrote: >> On 20 Apr 2015, at 18:53, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I propose that we don't drop test units but provide an ack to patches >>>> that have known regression failures. >>> >>> IIRC maintainers have had permission to issue such overrides since a >>> community meeting some months ago, but such overrides have remained >>> rare. What should we do to ensure that currently failing Jenkins >>> results are checked and (if necessary) overridden in a consistent >>> and timely fashion, without putting all of that burden directly on >>> your shoulders? Some sort of "officer of the day" rotation? An >>> Etherpad work queue? Something else? >> >> An Etherpad is probably a good basis for doing the listing. No >> preferences personally for how it gets attended to though. :) >> > > Another option would be to maintain a file with this list in the tests directory. run-tests.sh can lookup this file to determine whether it should continue or bail out. Good thinking. :) + 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
