Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Still" <mikal at stillhq.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Turbo-hipster
> 
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:24 AM, James E. Blair <jeblair at openstack.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> However, there are _a lot_ of third-party test systems coming on-line,
> >> and I'm not sure that expanding the "recheck language" to support ever
> >> more complexity is a good idea.  I can see how being able to say
> >> "recheck foo" would be useful in some circumstances, but given that just
> >> saying "recheck" will suffice, I'd prefer that we kept the general
> >> recommendation simple so developers can worry about something else.
> >
> > Fair enough. I feel like you and I should sit down and chat about this
> > stuff at the LCA meetup next week. If we need to make tweaks based on
> > that, then we will.
> 
> Further to this, I have just reloaded our zuul with a rules change.
> The following events will all cause a turbo hipster check run:
> 
> - uploading a patchset
> - restoring a patchset
> - commenting "recheck .*"
> - commenting "recheck migrations"

With the growing interest in 3rd party testing systems would using 'recheck turbo-hipster' make more sense here?

I'm fine with 'recheck migrations' in addition for turbo-hipster but it would make sense to align the recheck naming scheme with the title of the reviewer for the 3rd party testing system.


> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Rackspace Australia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>