Open Stack

Hello!

Please, look at the change:
https://review.openstack.org/188383


On 03.06.2015 18:56, James E. Blair wrote:
> Evgeny Antyshev <eantyshev at odin.com> writes:
>
>> Some CIs like to narrow their scope to a certain set of files.
>> For that, they specify file mask on per-job basis. So there appear
>> annoying comments with only "Build succeeded".
>> (an example complaint:
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-June/065367.html)
>>
>> Moreover, most of CIs which don't bother filtering, make lots of
>> comments to doc/unittest changes, which is also wrong.
>> (seehttps://review.openstack.org/#/c/152006, and most of CIs don't run unittests)
>> What if Zuul would not comment when no real jobs run?
>> The only meaningful task that is done is merging the patch,
>> but anyway in case of merge failure there should be "Merge failed" comment.
>>
>> In case of no objections, I'll make corresponding change in zuul.
> Sounds good to me.  In fact, if you specify no jobs for a
> project-pipeline in Zuul, it does nothing (which is why we have the noop
> jobs).  Arguably the fact that when the job set reduces to nothing due
> to filtering the change is still enqueued is a bug.
>
> I will note that this may complicate efforts to track the performance of
> third-party CI systems, especially determining whether they are
> reporting on all changes.  I still think you should make the change; the
> reporting systems may just need to be a little more sophisticated
> (perhaps they should only look at changes where OpenStack's CI system
> ran certain jobs).
>
> -Jim
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- 
Best regards,
Evgeny Antyshev.