On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:42:12PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: "Niels de Vos" <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:56:54AM +0530, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > > Hi Raghavendra, > > > > > > > > I noticed that for the below patches Gluster Build system hasn't voted > > > > and hence the verified flag doesn't have an ack from it even if the > > > > regression has passed. I think something is fishy in the script now, > > > > mind having a look? > > > > > > > > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13222/ > > > > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13210/ > > > > > > I've manually approved these now. No idea what caused the voting to have > > > failed. The votes are done through an ssh command in the regression test > > > itself, it is not a property of the test job (which is an option, but > > > gives us less flexibility). > > > > > > Maybe someone can figure out what went wrong? I could not see anything > > > in the console log that suggested a problem. > > > > Did the other tests (smoke, rpmbuild, version-and-branch) run after the > > regression? > > > > The logic is broken and if the other tests are delayed and will erase the > > regression +1Verified. > > > > Is this still applicable after removing the voting from smoke, rpmbuild and > other such projects? > IIRC, we removed voting lines from these scripts because of the race reason. It seems to be disabled, yes. But I do not know the reason for it, or when and where this was discussed/announced. It surely was surprising me because the FreeBSD failure might have been noticed much earlier. Got any pointers? Thanks, Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
