Open Stack

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:09:10AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> Earlier this week the freshness checks (the ones that required passing
> results within 24 hrs for a change to go into the gate) were removed to
> try to conserve nodes as we get to crunch time. The hopes were that
> review teams had enough handle on what when code in their program got
> into a state that it *could not* pass it's own unit tests to not approve
> that code.

Doh, I had no idea that we disabled the freshness checks. Since those
checks have been in place I think reviewers have somewhat come to rely
on them existing. I know I've certainly approved newly uploaded patches
for merge now without waiting for 'check' jobs to finish, since we've
been able to rely on the fact that the freshness checks will ensure it
doesn't get into the 'gate' jobs queue if there was a problem. I see
other reviewers do this reasonably frequently too. Of course this
reliance does not work out for 3rd party jobs, so people shouldn't
relly do that for changes where such jobs are important, but it is
hard to resist in general.

> Realistically Glance was the biggest offender of this in the past, and
> honestly the top reason for putting freshness checks in the gate in the
> first place.

I'm not commenting about the past transgressions, but as long as those
freshness jobs exist I think they sort of serve to actually re-inforce
the bad behaviour you describe because people can start to rely on them.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|