Open Stack

On 4 April 2016 at 09:22, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:

> Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 4 April 2016 at 09:01, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I noticed that often times we go and -2 all the patches in the review
>> queue on every neutron specific gate breakage spotted. This is allegedly
>> done to make sure that nothing known to be broken land in merge gate until
>> we fix the breakage on our side.
>>
>> This is not allegedly done. When I do it, I put a comment next to my
>> action.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I share the goal of not resetting the gate if we can avoid it, I
>> find the way we do it a bit too aggressive. Especially considering that
>> often times those -2 votes sit there not cleared even days after the
>> causing breakage is fixed, needlessly blocking patches landing.
>>
>> That's a blatant lie: I am aggressive at putting -2s as well as removing
>> them. Other changes for those the -2 stick is probably because they aren't
>> worth the hassle. We've been also in feature freeze so slowing things down
>> should have hurt anyway.
>>
>>
>> I suggest we either make sure that we remove those -2 votes right after
>> gate fixes land, or we use other means to communicate to core reviewers
>> that there is a time window when nothing should land in the merge queue.
>>
>> Initially I tried sending emails ahead of time alerting for gate
>> breakages, but that doesn't work for obvious reasons: there is a lag that
>> can still be fatal.
>>
>> On the specific circumstance, gate broke on Friday late afternoon PDT. It
>> didn't seem that was anything critical worth merging at all cost that
>> couldn't wait until Monday morning and I didn't bother check that things
>> merged safely in the middle of my weekend.
>>
>
> Yeah, but it’s already up to two working days in some places.
>

I hear ya, but I only blocked 6 patches with one +2, none of which were
critical, so I really didn't see much of a disruption; that said, I
appreciate your note, and I'll be even more cautious next time.


>
> Note that I don’t mean you should check anything on your weekend. Instead,
> I think we should avoid -2’s in this case and teach core reviewers to check
> some source of gate state truth. An email would actually work as long as
> everyone actively checks it [if for some reason people are not reading
> openstack-dev@, let’s To: everyone in the group].


Perhaps we could try using -1, rather than -2, hoping it gets the same
level of attention. Having tried the entire past cycle with emails I don't
see how they could work at all.


>
> Ihar
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160404/abe7c8eb/attachment.html>