Sven, bare rechecks can't be disabled, because it's hard to check if the meaningful reason is provided. Enforcing specify the reason will lead to the commands like "recheck failed" or "recheck lets check" etc. On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 7:10 PM Sławek Kapłoński <skaplons@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
Dnia czwartek, 21 marca 2024 16:23:21 CET Jeremy Stanley pisze:
On 2024-03-21 15:56:42 +0100 (+0100), Sven Kieske wrote: [...]
There must be a specific reason why bare rechecks are allowed at all? Why don't we simply enforce that there always must be a reason given?
Of course we can't enforce a meaningful reason being stated, but this is already the case now, so it would not get worse if we just disabled the possibility for bare rechecks, no? [...]
There was a time when we did exactly that, it lasted several years and the end result did not yield any measurable improvement in data quality. In fact, at one point we got restrictive enough to require bug numbers and the outcome was that people either made up nonexistent bug numbers or just put in any old bug they knew the number for regardless of whether it was related to the failure.
Yes it's been a while so I can't say for certain that the results would be the same if we tried again, but I don't have a good reason to believe it would turn out any different. Also, bear in mind, the pipeline trigger patterns apply to the entire Zuul tenant used by the OpenStack project, which is currently shared by any other projects outside OpenStack's governance, so if this change were enforced (again) it would disrupt their contributors' workflows as well. -- Jeremy Stanley
I agree with Jeremy here. We know that enforcing don't really work well and that's why we are trying to educate more :)
-- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat
-- Regards, Maksim Malchuk