Open Stack

On 15:04 Sep 22, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-09-22 14:50:55 +0000 (+0000), Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:
> > On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg" <jeremyfreudberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs
> > > until after some initial review has been added or time has
> > > passed. Authorized contributors, not necessarily synonymous with
> > > cores, can override the delay if there's a critical patch which
> > > needs to get through the queue quickly.
> >
> > +1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an
> > explicit Run-TryBot+1 review only after a core developer
> > ascertains that the patch looks okay and most code review comments
> > are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change
> > and every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so
> > that CI resources aren’t wasted for useless patches. This doesn’t
> > take a whole lot of work for the reviewers than the current review
> > process.
> > 
> > https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots
> 
> I'm wary of potential overengineering like this, particularly
> without at least some analysis showing the percentage of CI
> resources we'll save by asking our already overworked (on most teams
> anyway) core reviewers to also take on the task of authorizing basic
> CI jobs. The more likely outcome I foresee is that, much like
> contributions going unreviewed sometimes for weeks or months, the
> change authors won't even know whether their changes are suitable
> for review for some similar period of delay.
> 
> The CI system is there to serve reviewers and contributors, not the
> other way around. The CI resource shortages we see from time to time
> should not be used as an excuse to go on witch hunts so we can find
> ways to save what probably accounts for <1% of our overall
> utilization. That's classic premature optimization. What's important
> in this situation is the time wasted by reviewers having to respond
> to or find ways to ignore these patches, so let's focus on that
> rather than getting bogged down with attractive non-problems for
> which we can more easily engineer technical solutions.

+1

Can you imagine the number of jobs that would be delayed. At least today with
things not be delayed we can see if a patch ever worked when it was rebased in
the CI comments.

-- 
Mike Perez
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170922/13291250/attachment.sig>