On Jan 12, 2016 3:44 AM, "Michael Adam" <obnox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-08 at 12:03 +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
> > Top posting, this is a very old thread.
> >
> > Keeping in view the recent NetBSD problems and the number of bugs creeping
> > in, I suggest we do these things right now:
> >
> > a. Change the gerrit merge type to fast forward only.
> > As explained below in the thread, with our current setup even if both
> > PatchA and PatchB pass regression separately when both are merged it is
> > possible that a functional bug creeps in.
> > This is the only solution to prevent that from happening.
> > I will work with Kaushal to get this done.
> >
> > b. In Jenkins, remove gerrit trigger and make it a manual operation
> >
> > Too many developers use the upstream infra as a test cluster and it is
> > *not*.
> > It is a verification mechanism for maintainers to ensure that the patch
> > does not cause regression.
> >
> > It is required that all developers run full regression on their machines
> > before asking for reviews.
>
> Hmm, I am not 100% sure I would underwrite that.
> I am coming from the Samba process, where we have exactly
> that: A developer should have run full selftest before
> submitting the change for review. Then after two samba
> team developers have given their review+ (counting the
> author), it can be pushed to our automatism that keeps
> rebasing on current upstream and running selftest until
> either selftest succeeds and is pushed as a fast forward
> or selftest fails.
>
> The reality is that people are lazy and think they know
> when they can skip selftest. But people are deceived and
> overlook problems. Hence either reviewers run into failures
> or the automatic pre-push selftest fails. The problem
> I see with this is that it wastes the precios time of
> the reviewers.
>
> When I started contributing to Gluster, I found it to
> be a big, big plus to have automatic regression runs
> as a first step after submission, so that a reviewer
> has the option to only start looking at the patch once
> automatic tests have passed.
>
> I completely agree that the fast-forward-only and
> post-review-pre-merge-regression-run approach
> is the way to go, only this way the original problem
> described by Talur can be avoided.
>
> But would it be possible to keep and even require some
> amount of automatic pre-review test run (build and at
> least some amount of runtimte test)?
> It really prevents waste of time of reviewers/maintainers.
>
> The problem with this is of course that it can increase
> the (real) time needed to complete a review from submission
> until upstream merge.
>
> Just a few thoughts...
>
> Cheers - Michael
>
We had same concern from many other maintainers. I guess it would be better if test runs both before and after review. With these changes we would have removed test runs of work in progress patches.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
