[openstack-dev] [neutron] -2'ing all patches on every gate breakage

Carl Baldwin carl at ecbaldwin.net
Mon Apr 4 22:16:39 UTC 2016

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Doug Wiegley
<dougwig at parksidesoftware.com> wrote:
> I don’t know, -1 really means, “there is something wrong, the submitter
> should fix it and clear the slate.”  Whereas -2 has two meanings.  The first
> is “procedural block”, and the second is “f*** you.”
> I really don’t see a reason not to use the procedural block as a procedural
> block. Are you not trusting the other cores to remove them or something?
> It’s literally what it’s there for.

I'm not complaining.  I've had plenty of these -2s and I understanding
the reason behind it.  But, I thought I'd chime in.

I interpret a -2 on a patch as a procedural block because of something
related to the patch.  It is awkward as a procedural block when it is
being applied due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the
patch itself and the only person who can remove the block is the
person who applied it in the first place.  That person might get
distracted, leave for the week-end, go on vacation, etc.

Would it be nice if the project itself had an easy procedural block?
A single switch that turns off entering the gate queue for the entire
project?  Wouldn't it also be nice if the switch could be toggled by
any one of a group responsible for it?  I think it would be nice but
I'm not sure how it could be easily implemented.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list