On 01/07/2016 03:15 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
If you do not
prevent integration of patches that break NetBSD regression, that will get
in, and tests will break one by one over time.
On the other hand, if patch A starts blocking all merges because of
NetBSD failures, then all platforms - including NetBSD - are denied the
benefit of fixes in patches B through Z. The real problem is that our
tests are so non-deterministic, so that they pass once and a patch gets
merged, but then fail every time after that. The signal-to-noise ratio
is really low, and for some reason this problem seems even worse on
NetBSD than on Linux. The cost of mandatory NetBSD tests is unbounded,
sometimes small enough to be a good investment (of our time) but
sometimes totally out of proportion to that benefit. That's not just
frustrating for developers; it's also a disservice to the vast majority
of our users who might be waiting on fixes. I'd prefer a "defined level
of effort" approach which *might* reduce the benefit we derive from
NetBSD testing but *definitely* keeps the cost under control.
Can we have closure on it, this time around. We all seem to be open to
discussing these approaches, which clearly shows that this problem is
faced by almost everyone who is sending patches. So can we have a
decision taken this time around, and have it implemented. On the top of
my head, we can use any of the following to take a call on this.
1. Have the component maintainers vote on one of the approaches and then
decide.
2. Have the architects take a call based on the pros and cons of an
approach and then decide.
Either way let's address this, once and for all in a way that it
addresses the pain-points, instead of coming back to it every other month.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
