Open Stack

On Apr 9, 2016 12:05, "Ken'ichi Ohmichi" <ken1ohmichi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2016/04/08 10:55、Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> :
>
> >> On 04/08/2016 01:42 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> >> 2016-04-08 19:26 GMT+02:00 Davanum Srinivas <davanum at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Team,
> >>>
> >>> Steve pointed out to a problem in Stackalytics:
> >>> https://twitter.com/stevebot/status/718185667709267969
> >>
> >>
> >> There are many ways to game a simple +1 counter, such as +1'ing changes
> >> that already have at least 1x +2, or which already approved, or which
need
> >> rechecking...
>
> Can we merge this kind of patches without reviews?
> When seeing this kind of patches, I check all jobs are succeeded.
Sometimes some job failed, I check the reason and +2 if that is unrelated.
>
> This workflow seems possible to be implemented automatically.
> Or bad idea?
>
> Thanks
>

A true automerge has potential to accidentally clobber things in an ugly
way if it goes wrong. The auto propose but core approval still has a level
of human spot checking. I would personally be uncomfortable with the bot
automatically merging  things. At face value the overhead of a core
approval and possibility of what is highlighted in this thread is better
IMHO.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's pretty clear what's happening if you look here:
> >>>
> >>>
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:openstack-infra%2540lists.openstack.org+status:open
> >>>
> >>> Here's the drastic step (i'd like to avoid):
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/303545/
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>
> >> One more possible (though also imperfect) mitigation is to make
exception
> >> from the usual 2x +2 rule for requirements updates passing gates and
use
> >> only 1x +2. Then requirements reviews will take substantially less
time to
> >> land, reducing need/possibility of having such +1's.
> >
> > Proposal bot patches merge in many cases with 1 +2 already.
> >
> > Have you looked at the timing of the bot patches generated and the first
> > +1's? If not, take a look at that.
> >
> > I don't think we should be expecting core reviewers to schedule
> > approving bot proposals to prevent extraneous +1s.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anita.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Dims
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
> >>>
> >>>
__________________________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
__________________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
__________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160409/e523131c/attachment.html>