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