[all] Gate resources and performance

Jeremy Stanley fungi at yuggoth.org
Sun Feb 7 16:40:59 UTC 2021

On 2021-02-07 17:25:29 +0100 (+0100), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 3:12 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > On 2021-02-07 14:58:14 +0100 (+0100), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Although currently there is an unfortunately tendency between
> > > newcomers to blindly recheck their patches despite clearly not
> > > passing some checks. If they could recheck only some jobs, it
> > > would limit their negative impact on the whole CI (and maybe make
> > > them realize that it's always the same jobs that fail).
> > [...]
> > 
> > Put differently, there is a strong tendency for newcomers and
> > long-timers alike to just beep blindly rechecking their buggy
> > changed until they merge and introduce new nondeterministic
> > behaviors into the software. If they only needed to recheck the
> > specific jobs which failed on those bugs they're introducing one
> > build at a time, it would become far easier for them to accomplish
> > their apparent (judging from this habit) goal of making the software
> > essentially unusable and untestable.
> I cannot confirm your observation. In the cases I've seen it's a hard
> failure, completely deterministic, they just fail to recognize it.
> In any case, leaving this right to cores only more or less fixes this
> concern.

Before we began enforcing a "clean check" rule with Zuul, there were
many occasions where a ~50% failure condition was merged in some
project, and upon digging into the origin it was discovered that the
patch which introduced it actually failed at least once and was
rechecked until it passed, then the prior rechecks were ignored by
core reviewers who went on to approve the patch, and the author
proceeded to recheck-spam it until it merged, repeatedly tripping
tests on the same bug in the process.

Once changes were required to pass their full battery of tests twice
in a row to merge, situations like this were drastically reduced in
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20210207/a2f0fd8a/attachment.sig>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list